Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Popular culture

1) In addition to serious articles regarding science and history Wikipedia includes material which reflects popular culture.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources for popular culture

2) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies; therefore, when there is a substantial body of material as might be revealed by a google search for 'bisexual "James Dean"' [1] the best material available is acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obsession

3) Users who are otherwise productive editors but who disrupt particular articles due to obsessive concentration of attention on them may be banned from those articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prior case

1) This matter arises from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone which concerned complaints by Ted Wilkes that Onefortyone had aggressively pushed a personal agenda on Wikipedia focused on assertions that several celebrities, notably Elvis Presley and James Dean, had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Outcome of prior case

2} Onefortyone's edits were examined and found to be deficient in several respects, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Fndings_of_fact. However, sometimes he did cite sources which were sufficient to support addition of information to articles, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources_cited_by_Onefortyone and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Edits_by_Onefortyone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remedy in prior case

3) Due to Onefortyone making some good edits but also having serious problems with regard to adequate sourcing of information he was not banned from editing articles which relate to celebrities but placed on Wikipedia:Probation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation effective 3 November 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nature of Probation

4) Wikipedia:Probation provides that an administrator may ban a user from editing an article if the terms of the probation are broken. Onefortyone was placed on the following probation:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Characteristics of probation

5) Wikipedia:Probation is a relatively new remedy which relies on Wikipedia:Administrators for enforcement. As Ted Wilkes and Wyss were not administrators they could not enforce it themselves but were required to attract the attention of a Wikipedia administrator with enough interest and energy to look into this matter and consider the sources Onefortyone was using. Attracting the attention of an administrator would probably best be accomplished by posting a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however Ted Wilkes and Wyss were not specifically informed of this nor was it suggested at Wikipedia:Probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Affected articles

6) Articles which were hotly contested were Elvis Presley, James Dean, Nick Adams, others included Raymond Burr, Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The Elvis and Me article is also part of the edit war. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [2], [3] and [4]. I corrected the text but Wyss reverted my version to the fabricated one by Ted Wilkes. See [5]. For direct quotes from the book, see [6]. Onefortyone 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Elvis Presley

6.1) Following the decision in the earlier case Onefortyone made an edit to Elvis Presley [7]. This was reverted without comment by Ted Wilkes [8]. A few days later Onefortyone again adds material which relates to the Memphis Mafia [9]. Ted Wilkes again reverts without comment [10].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about Elvis and the guys from the Memphis Mafia,

Every night they went to the shows, Elvis and his guys, dressed identically in their dark glasses and dark mohair suits. The Colonel joked that they looked like a bunch of old men, but the Memphis Mafia had become almost as well known around town as Frank Sinatra's Rat Pack. They were living on speed and tranqs; for Joe [Esposito], who liked to portray himself to Elvis as Broadway Joe, a sophisticated man-about-town, "it was a party like you wouldn't believe. Go to a different show every night, then pick up a bunch of women afterwards, go party the next night. Go to the lounges, see Fats Domino, Della Reese, Jackie Wilson, the Four Aces, the Dominoes - all the old acts. We'd stay there and never sleep, we were all taking pills just so we could keep up with each other." (p. 116)

According to a recent Playboy article by Byron Raphael and reputed Elvis biographer Alanna Nash, entitled "In Bed With Elvis" (November 2005), Natalie Wood "was not the only one to think Elvis and the guys [i.e. the men from the Memphis Mafia] might be homosexual, especially since Elvis often wore pancake makeup and mascara offstage to accentuate his brooding intensity, a la Tony Curtis and Rudolph Valentino, his favorite movie actors." See [11]. Onefortyone 00:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ted Wilkes still continues edit warring and has again reverted one of my contributions, although I have provided a reputed source. See [12]. Onefortyone 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

James Dean

6.2) Following the decision in the earlier case Onefortyone made an edit to James Dean adding a section "Rumors about Dean's bisexuality" [13]. This was immediately reverted by Ted Wilkes without comment [14]. An edit war ensued with Ted Wilkes commenting "See Talk page and Arbitration Committee ruling" [15]. Wyss joins [16]. FCYTravis (talk · contribs) joins the edit war in response to a notice at Wikipedia:Mentorship_Committee#Onefortyone that the matter required attention [17] commenting "Perfectly encyclopedic to discuss published works which discuss Dean's potential sexuality. Omitting sourced, published discussion does readers a disservice." Citing 400k google hits on the subject FCYTravis copyedits and adds additional sourcing. Ted Wilkes again reverts [18] again commenting "see Talk and Arbitration Committee hearings and ruling". An edit war ensued which resulted in the banning of FCYTravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to violation of the three revert rule. See Talk:James Dean

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Actual 3R violation was due to edit war on Nick Adams. The sources provided by Onefortyone and adapted by FCYTravis are to books but not to specific passages in the books cited. This is very poor practice, but the proper response is to call for specificity, not to revert. Fred Bauder 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The sources need to be IN the article, not off on some talk page. They also need to be credible, which Bret is not. Fred Bauder 16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. For direct quotes from the books mentioned in the Sexuality section of the article, see, for instance, [19] and [20]. Onefortyone 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, Ted Wilkes does not say the truth. He accuses me of being a deceiver (which is surely a personal attack) and falsely claims that

User:Onefortyone was fully aware of ALL this. Note how he quotes John Gilmore (writer) here at both Talk:James Dean and in the James Dean article but on Nick Adams deliberately and with the intent to deceive, makes no mention of what Gilmore said about Nick Adams and Dean. See [21]

I have never before visited the John Gilmore website. The fact is that on 15 August 2005 Ted Wilkes himself included John Gilmore's statement in the James Dean article. See [22] and [23]. A few minutes later, this passage was rewritten by Wyss. See [24]. Months later, I only reinstated the Sexuality paragraph including the Gilmore passage written by Ted Wilkes and Wyss. My quotes on the Talk:James Dean page are from Val Holley, James Dean: The Biography. Onefortyone 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nick Adams

6.3) Following the decision in the earlier case Onefortyone added material to Nick Adams [25]. This was reverted immediately by Ted Wilkes [26] without comment. Onefortyone restores and adds a bit more [27] [28]. Ted Wilkes reverts without comment [29]. One fortyone restores, Ted Wilkes reverts with the comment "see Talk page and Arbitration Committee ruling" [30]. An edit war ensues with Wyss commenting "rv edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles" [31]. FCYTravis joins and restores with the comment "Seems NPOV now. I don't think there's enough there to support the Elvis Presley bit, so that goes out the window." [32]. Ted Wilkes reverts and FCYTravis restores with the comment "again, blanket reversions are prohibited. you are violating Wikipedia rules." [33]. Ted Wilkes reverts with the comment "Removed text concerning rumors - See talk & Arbitration Committee hearings and ruling" [34]. An edit war ensued which resulted in FCYTravis being blocked for 3RR. See Talk:Nick Adams

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. On 5 December 2005, Ted Wilkes returns to his tactic of denigrating all sources which are not in line with his personal view and continues edit warring. See [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Onefortyone 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Ted Wilkes is still heavily engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, etc. and includes personal research in the Nick Adams article. See, for instance, [40], [41] and [42]. Administrator FCYTravis was forced to revert Wilkes's edits. See [43]. Onefortyone 23:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Ted Wilkes is the only editor who repeatedly tries to swamp the Wikipedia article on Nick Adams with expressions such as "gossip book" or "discredited gossip writer", "not supported by any evidence", "alleged", "all unsubtantiated claims ... possibly repeated one from another" etc. in order to denigrate sources he doesn't like. See [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. It seems as if he wishes to suppress independent sources which are not in line with his personal view. I have never seen edits of this kind before. Onefortyone 19:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Raymond Burr, Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Complaints and warning

7) Reverted constantly by Ted Wilkes and Wyss, Onefortyone complained at User talk:Fred Bauder [51] [52] [53]. Requests were made to Wyss [54] and Ted Wilkes [55] quoting the relevant part of the decision and requesting that it be respected. The same notice was given to Onefortyone [56] with an additional response [57] suggesting asking for clarification on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration rather than reopening the case. See User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Requests_for_arbitration.2FOnefortyone.2FProposed_decision User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Re:Edits_of_Onefortyone and User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Re:Your_message_concerning_reverting_on_the_Nick_Adams_article

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. On 6 December 2005, Ted Wilkes claims on the Talk:Nick Adams page that I am "a convicted liar". See [58] and Talk:Nick_Adams#True_accusation_against_User:Onefortyone.2C_a_liar_on_Wikipedia:Probation. This is certainly a personal attack. There were many other attacks of this kind in the past.

Comment by others:

Ted Wilkes's response

8) After receiving a request to respect the arbitration decision Ted Wilkes responded, "I will continue to revert any edit [Onefortyone] does that is a reinsertion of the same numerous references, fabrications, and distortions from the past or edits with those same ones where he claims a few "new" sources that are in fact similarly unacceptable under the same Wikipedia policy precepts." User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Re:_Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. Working together with Wyss all additions by Onefortyone were deleted as well as those made by FCYTravis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ted Wilkes and Wyss's view of the standard of editing

9) Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James_Dean#Removal_of_.22Rumors.22_section [59] and Talk:Nick_Adams#Rumors.2C_gossip_or_speculation_contravene_official_Wikipedia_policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ted Wilkes and Wyss banned from certain celebrity articles

1) Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality as measured by google hits in excess of 10,000 as measured by a search for the celebrities' name and "gay", "bisexual" or homosexual."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Wyss certainly is/was deeply involved in the case because he/she frequently worked together with Ted Wilkes in order to revert my contributions and denigrate the many independent sources I have used. It should also be noted that Wyss immediately supported Wilkes's RfAr against arbitrator Fred Bauder. It seems as if these two editors are somehow connected to each other. Onefortyone 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Wyss has not left Wikipedia. He/she continues to denigrate arbitrator Fred Bauder (see [[60], [61]) and now even attacks Jimbo Wales. See [62]. Onefortyone 20:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Wyss is still showing a lack of insight. On 16 December 2005, he/she says on his/her talk page: "Too many active Wikipedians are wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls which includes several members of arbcomm who are more interested in publishing unsupported gay celebrity gossip than they are in writing an encyclopedia to academic standards." See [63]. Onefortyone 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Wait! After reviewing the evidence a bit more, I've realized Wyss isn't really the problem-- Ted Wilkes is. I would prefer it if Wyss is taken out of the banning (which may not make a difference, she appears to have left wikipedia). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: