Case Opened on 14:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Plaintiff

Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs)

AMA advocate

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Defendant

Onefortyone (talk · contribs) who also uses ips in the 80.141. range

Issue

Repeated insertion of information that Elvis Presley (and other celebrities) were gay.

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words Summary:

First, I apologize to members of the Arbitration Committee for the exceptional length of this submission but the matter is of such an egregious nature that there is no other choice. The issue at hand is not about a difference of opinion. User: Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al is an abuser of Wikipedia who takes advantage of the goodwill of others and is an unrelenting disruptive force that has rebuffed all attempts to correct his fabricated and non-encyclopedic edits by reverting others hundreds of times. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al has edited with one theme in the articles for David Bret, Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert, Memphis Mafia and Elvis Presley and on September 3rd went back to James Dean, making six edits that created a section he titled "Rumors about Dean's homosexual leanings." This was followed by an edit war. All of the edits to these articles have been orchestrated through referencing and targeted linking to Nick Adams in support of a gossip book by David Bret that insinuated Presley was gay. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al does not care that he fabricates information and writes exclusively POV, it is an deliberate campaign to insert his Presley/Adams/Bret connection on as many articles and Talk pages as possible that will then be reflected by the many Wikipedia mirrors on the Internet as well as show up on Google searches. Note that Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al leaves long messages on other Wikipedians talk page so that they will show up on Google such as User:Ed Poor's page as seen here that shows:

User talk:Ed Poor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor - 101k - 11 Sep 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Note too that when the Presley and Adams articles were page protected, it meant little as Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al then massively used the Talk page(s) which also show up on Google. In this regard, see what User:Wyss said on Talk:Natalie Wood:

Here, the anon uses the standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material which has little or no bearing on this short article. His ultimate goal by the way is to support an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC) Wyss
The anon is trying to place as many instances of the terms homosexual and gay as possible into these four articles, I speculate in order to trigger misleading keyword search results in Google, which is significantly influenced by Wikipedia and its mirrors. Wyss 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
adroitly following the cultural mores of Wikipedia, all the while working to subvert it in order to trigger some misleading keyword searches on Google related to Elvis Presley. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives knowledgeable and scholastically rigorous editors away from WP. Wyss 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See what User:Func said here about Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al:

Yeah, I've just done some edit history searching. The anon is a POV warrior of the first degree, and does not appear to be editing in good faith. func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

When I and others took the time to examine the edits by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al in detail and to document their fabrications and distortions, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al simply reworded them slightly and immediately or a few days later begin reinserting them. Their exact same distortions that began with intense edit wars five months ago were still being posted at Wikipedia by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al over and over and even in his new article created on September 4th: [rumors about Elvis Presley].

Note that User: Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al's constant reinsertions of fabrications and distortions reap rewards because virtually no one reads all the past history on all the various Talk pages. As an example of how well it works, look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley where a sincere Wikipedia contributor votes to keep this article saying: "keep, seems well sourced". And, then another voter arrives at the same conclusion saying: "as noted above this does appear to be well-sourced." Then, seeing that the voting is going against him, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al fills the bottom of the page with massive text claiming new information that Elivis was gay. He does this knowing that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page will be kept as an archive. As at 20:37, 14 September 2005 we now have a new article Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality with a repeat of all the same fabrications and distortions.

As suggested by User:Wyss on several occasions, I too believe that Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al is a sockpuppet used exclusively by another Wikipedia contributor for these slected articles. As such, simultaneous to this Request for Arbitration I have formally requested David Gerard to access CheckUser in order to check this possibility.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words Notice. Ted Wilkes has totally deleted my comment from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ Onefortyone/ANON 80.141.et al/ Supplement page. See [1] and [2]. I do not think that this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. For Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics, see also [3] and [4]

The problem is that there is an edit war going on and User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are deeply involved in this war. As everybody can see from the related discussion pages, they are constantly accusing me of vandalism, fabrications, distortions, being a liar, etc., denigrating the sources (books, reviews, articles, webpages) I have used to support my contributions. As I have added many links to my contributions, every reader can see that the sources I have used exist and are reliable enough for Wikipedia contributions. Wyss and Ted Wilkes don't like the fact that some authors say that some Hollywood stars such as Elvis Presley and his friend, actor Nick Adams were gay or had homosexual leanings. That's a real problem. I am frequently citing several independent sources. On the other hand, users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are unable to cite sources which prove that the claims in the sources I have provided are wrong. I have now detected some additional sources supporting my view, but Ted Wilkes and Wyss continue to denigrate these sources. Wyss even deleted my summary of the facts on the Talk:Elvis Presley page which is not in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. See [5]. For further passages removed by Wyss, see [6], [7] and [8]. As administrator User:DropDeadGorgias has suggested, I have created a new Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page summarizing the claims in order to exclude this material from the main talk page. That's all. And I am surprized that there is now a "third party" statement by Wyss below, although this user is deeply involved in the edit war. Onefortyone 22:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept. I hope the evidence page will be considerably more terse than the comments have been, however. James F. (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 11:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Verified information

1) Contentious facts which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Passed 6-0

Probation

2) Users whose activities are disruptive with respect to particular articles or topics may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation which permits administrators to ban them from those articles where their activities have been disruptive.

Passed 6-0

Findings of fact

Gay celebrities

1) Onefortyone, usually editing as an anonymous IP in the 80.141 range, has added information to a number of articles concerning Hollywood and other celebrities regarding their sexual orientation.

Passed 6-0

Sources cited by Onefortyone

2) The sources cited by Onefortyone vary in quality, some being of doubtful reliability, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources_cited_by_Onefortyone

Passed 6-0

Original reseach by Onefortyone

3) In some instances Onefortyone has used sources as material to support conclusions which he has arrived at himself, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Original_reseach_by_Onefortyone

Passed 6-0

Citing of nonexistent sources by Onefortyone

4) Onefortyone, in at least one instance, cites a source which does not exist in the form cited [9], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Citing_of_nonexistent_sources_by_Onefortyone

Passed 6-0

Remedies

Onefortyone placed on Probation

1) Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

Passed 6-0

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any action taken arising from the above remedies. At a minimum, please include article name, date and time, administrator name, a brief description of disruption caused, and action taken.

I have banned Onefortyone from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me, for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims. This ban expires on April 16th, 2006. Stifle 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above ban applies to their talk pages as well, although if Onefortyone chooses to invite community comment by starting an article RFC on any or all of them, the ban is automatically vacated with respect to the article(s) he RFCs. Stifle 13:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Onefortyone has violated this ban [10] on March 17th. I am blocking him for 48 hours. --DDG 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am invoking the above article ban remedy for Elvis Presley. Onefortyone's editing at that article has provoked concern from a number of different editors (see, for example, [11] and [12], more at Talk:Elvis Presley), is largely devoted to creating a new narrative that Presley was incestuous and homosexual, and, according to Hoary, the admin who asked me to invoke this remedy, has cited sources that do not support claims made. The ban shall expire September 27 2006. Jkelly 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Randolph Scott and banned for 2 months from Nick Adams. Randolph Scott and Elvis Presley. See explanation here. Thatcher131 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article bans are hereby lifted, due to abusive sockpuppetry on the articles by another editor, who also requested the bans. See explanation here. Thatcher131 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone (talk · contribs) warned that any further misconduct in the Elvis Preslet topic area will likely result in an indefinite topic ban or block, in response to this AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]