Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone

Case Opened on 00:22, 28 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

I request a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs)
• Wyss (talk · contribs)
• Onefortyone (talk · contribs)

Statement by Ted Wilkes

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Please be advised that I formally protest this Arbitration proceeding and reserve all rights to the recourses available without exclusion as prescribed at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope. Take note that on 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC), Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin blocked me for one week, said block expiring 21:36, 23 November 2005. The decisions by Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder, Arbitration Committee member User:Jdforrester, Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin, and Arbitration Committee member Mindspillage to hear this case were knowingly rendered while I was under block. This action constituted a full denial of my right to a rebuttal statement while at the same time prejudicing my position by having accepted statements from others including an inaccurate 699 word Statement by party 3, said party 3 on Wikipedia:Probation. Rendering a judgment while I was under block and unable to exercise my right to due process was discriminatory and violated a precept essential to an impartial arbitration and elemental to the principle stated in Rule # 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Rules. In accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested," as my first step in this initial stage of the Arbitration Committee process I hereby exercise the right to specifically request that the four Individual Arbitrators named herein provide a rationale for their vote on the Request that denied me the right to due process. - Ted Wilkes 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Wyss

Please limit your statement to 500 words

The filer of this RfAr has taken no steps towards any sort of dispute resolution or mediation and contrary to the template instructions, has declined to explain why he thinks such efforts would be presumably fruitless. Meanwhile, 141 is currently on probation for abusive editing practices and tactics. I was mistaken in my initial impression that he'd been prohibited from editing celebrity articles because I misinterpreted some related edit summaries before before being contacted by Fred Bauder and reading the arbcom decision for myself. After I was contacted by Fred Bauder that single time, I never touched the articles again. Aside from Fred Bauder, nobody has ever meaningfully contacted me about my behaviour towards 141 in the past. I think it's because few really care about the inclusion of unsupported gossip in celebrity articles... it is rather boring, truth be told. Anyway I'm always open to helpful suggestions in these efforts to stabilize the articles involved.

Arbcom members are respectfully requested not to conflate past issues concerning 141 with my recent attempts to explain Ted Wilkes' long and extremely unpopular RfAr against Fred Bauder on the project talk page. Given the timing of this RfAr, I'm convinced that the filer has included me in it as backhanded punishment for my commentary concerning Ted Wilkes' above-mentioned RfAr. I have informed the filer that this is a blatant, abusive breach of WP policy and that I am deeply unhappy about it. This RfAr is not necessary since any active admin or bureaucrat can contact me on my talk page and politely ask me to desist from any given behaviour and I more than likely will.

As for User:Calton, with whom I cannot remember having had any contact in the past, readers will please note that I began using metaphors (which he cites below) only after he and others had begun directing sarcasm at me on this project's talk page. I was trying to lightheartedly diffuse that by repeating back their metaphors myself in my replies. For example, Calton was the first to use the signal-to-noise-ratio metaphor, as a reference to wordiness. Later, he posted the following note to me, which I think speaks for itself.

Because Wikipedia's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across the encyclopedia I will no longer be participating in this project. Wyss 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Onefortyone

Please limit your statement to 500 words

User:Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Reply_by_Onefortyone. Significantly, user Wyss and Ted Wilkes are frequently accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, a liar, a troll, of fabricating texts, etc. See Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, [1], etc. etc. Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. He deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See [7] and [8]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted by him. See [9]. Wyss accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [10] and [11]. Both Ted Wilkes and Wyss are denigrating all books and articles I have used for my Wikipedia contributions. They are constantly reverting my edits, which are supported by several independent, and published, sources, presumably because these sources are not in line with their personal view. For instance, they have repeatedly called reputed biographer Gavin Lambert, which was one of my sources, a gossip book writer, referring to a positive Guardian review which actually said "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also Talk:Gavin_Lambert#Lambert_the_insightful_chronicler_of_Hollywood. Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#3RR_Violation. Significantly, another user stated on the Talk:Elvis Presley page: "what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something 'bad' about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the 'system' prevents those things from staying there for too long." See [12]. There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits. The blanket reversions continue. Recently, contributions by administrator FCYTravis were also reverted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See [22], [23], [24] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions. Onefortyone 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am now providing diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of harrassing Onefortyone after arbitration closed on 3 November 2005:

• On 6 November, Ted Wilkes falsely claimed that I had violated probation. He says, "I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions here and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. See Talk:Elvis_Presley#Violation_of_probation_by_User:Onefortyone.
• Since 8 November, Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Gavin Lambert article referring to the Arbitration Committee ruling. See [25], [26], [27], [28]. Wyss was even asking in his edit summary, "why hasn't this user been blocked as per the arbcom ruling?" Administrator FCYTravis reinstated most parts of my edits (see [29]), but his contributions were also repeatedly reverted by Ted Wilkes. See [30] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions.
• Since 7 November, there were also numerous reverts by Ted Wilkes and Wyss of my contributions to the Nick Adams page. See [31], [32], [33]. Wyss falsely claimed in his edit summary that he was reverting "edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". See [34]. Ted Wilkes even removed the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [35], [36].
• Since 8 November, both Ted Wilkes and Wyss were reverting my contributions to the James Dean article. See [37], [38], [39], [40]. Wilkes also reverted the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [41], [42]

Here are some diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these cases of harrassment after they occurred:

• Talk:James Dean page: [43], [44], [45], [46].
• Talk:Nick Adams page: [47], [48], [49], [50]. [51]. Onefortyone 22:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On 18 November 2005, User:Wyss still accused me on his talk page of having used the rumours section of an article "as a wedge from which to seed Elvis Presley with Google-friendly keywords which would lead to tabloid books by David Brent." See [52]. Such an absurd accusation clearly shows that Wyss is not really willing to put an end to the edit war with me. Onefortyone 21:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I find Wyss' statement that he'll knock off his misapplication of Onefortyone's probation if asked by an admin to be more than a little disingenuous, considering

• that he HAS been notified by an admin, Fred Bauder. [53]
• that he is being notified of his misapprehension of the probation by one of the people who actually crafted it, so therefore might be expected to have first-hand knowledge of what it means.
• that he falsely characterizes Fred Bauder's post as a threat of ArbCom, since what it actually says is I think [Onefortyone's] complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case, which is a (in my opinion accurate) characterization of Wyss's behavior and its potential consequences.

--Calton | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll note that Wyss's addition doesn't respond to s single one of the points I raised, in addition to throwing in an out-of-context quote. He left off the preceding posts, whereby he, despite claiming that the ArbCom members are expected to plow through all 3,000 words of Ted Wilkes' request below and sift for the nuggets of meaning...

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that should be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

...he then, in groundlessly questioning my qualification to comment (...have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?), he professes to not understand my simple 92-word answer (Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post) AND its bullet-pointed follow-up.

In other words, he's being disingenuous and evasive, and it appears to be his normal operating mode. He certainly lacks any standing to complain about sarcasm, given his liberal use of it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by FuelWagon

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Please provide diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of "harrassing" onefortyone after arbitration closed. (A brief look at the statement by onefortyone shows that most diffs of alleged bad behaviour occur in September or October.) Then please provide diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these alleged cases of harrassment after they occurred. No, a request for arbitration by Wyss or Wilkes against Fred Bauder does not satisfy either an example of harrassment against onefortyone or an attempt to resolve said harrassment.

Furthermore, FredBauder is far too involved with these editors to accept or reject this request for arbitration against Wyss and Wilkes. Fred should have recused himself from Wilkes's RFA against him, and he should clearly recuse himself from this one. That he accepted this RFA against Wilkes and Wyss without a single diff showing either editor actually harassing onefortyone or a single diff showing anyone actually trying to resolve the alleged behaviour is telling.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, to the point that numerous editors have gotten emotionally involved. And I mean "numerous". And I don't mean "everyone you percieve to be the enemy here". Given a complete lack of evidence of misbehaviour, a complete lack evidence of any real attempt to resolve the alleged misbehaviour, and the acceptance by a member of arbcom who has a clear conflict of interest, I call a time out and a cooling off period. Everyone gets to go to their respective corners and chill out for a while. Because this is looking far more like someone is getting railroaded than any sort of legitimate attempt to resolve a real dispute. FuelWagon 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(update) user onefortyone has provided some diffs that have occurred since the arbcom case has closed. All the dates for the diffs occur in November, so I'm just going to provide the diffs with just the date of the month in them. This is what it looks like when laid out sequentially.

evidence of disputed behaviour: 88899910101012121213

attempts to resove dispute: 11 1113131313131313131313 16

So, pretty much all the diffs of disputed behaviour occurred before anyone attempted to resolve the dispute. The two attempts to resolve on the 11th [54] [55] were both by the same person, JackofOz, which doesn't meet the RfC requrement and they're fairly indirect attempts. Assuming you count those attempts, you're looking at a total of four diffs of alleged harrassment that occurred on or after the 11th 12121213. I don't know how much of a stickler arbcom is, but four edits doesn't seem to warrant their attention. The serious attempts to resolve the dispute seem to have occurred on teh 13th, when Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13 (Wyss or Wilkes or both cited the arbcom ruling in some of their edits that are cited as alleged harrassment. I don't know what the ruling was, but it would seem that whatever Kelly told them, plus multiple attempts to resolve the issue, cleared things up and resolved whatever problem existed). There are no diffs of alleged harrassment provided that occur after the 13th. Personally, I would declare that the attempts to resolve the dispute on the 13th, did in fact, resolve the dispute. Can we move on now? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC) This case was accepted because it seemed that Ted Wilkes and Wyss were misinterpreting the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone and acting aggressively on that misinterpretation. Fred Bauder 16:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept (as an addenndum to the original 141 case seems sensible). James F. (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.