(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TerryJ-Ho (talk | contribs) at 11:07, 30 October 2006 (→‎Statement by TerryJ-Ho). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:Hkelkar

Initiated by BhaiSaab talk at 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a case regarding sockpuppetry and disruption by User:Shiva's Trident and/or User:Hkelkar.

Statement by BhaiSaab

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Shiva's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) formerly known as Subhash bose block log or Netaji.

Suspected sockpuppets

Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Background

Shiva's Trident or Subhash bose is a confirmed sockpuppeteer who is no longer active. The confirmed sockpuppet was User:Pusyamitra_Sunga who claimed to be his brother and was indefinitely blocked after it was found that he and Shiva's Trident used the same email address. Furthermore, Shiva's Trident has used at least two IP addresses to evade his blocks. They are User:128.83.131.121 and User:128.83.131.215. Both trace to University of Texas at Austin [1] [2], and a reverse dns for each renders linux1.ph.utexas.edu and statpc1.ph.utexas.edu, respectively. On the userpage of Shiva's Trident, we can see that he attends the University of Texas at Austin.

User:128.83.131.139

During a nearly week-long block of Shiva's Trident that was instated on August 21st, another IP (User:128.83.131.139) began editing on August 22nd. This IP later claimed to be a person by the name of Hrishi or Hrishikesh Kelkar. The IP traces to the University of Texas at Austin and a reverse dns of the IP renders twist.ph.utexas.edu. In addition, I found it odd that this IP was familiar with Wikipedia terminology from his very first edit, was comfortable enough to issue warnings after only two days on Wikipedia (to a user who Shiva's Trident has quarreled with many times in the past), and edited the very same articles that Shiva's Trident was editing before his block had begun. Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident maintain that they had previous conversations about Wikipedia before he began editing here.
I filed a sockpuppetry case for this IP and the admin recommended that I add it to an already pending request for checkuser involving user Shiva's Trident. During this time, Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident also had a conversation on IRC with some Wikipedia admins to demonstrate that they were two different users. The log of the conversation shows that Shiva's Trident was typing from 66.68.106.162 (tracing to a Road Runner IP in Austin) and Hkelkar, or hrishi, was typing from twist.ph.utexas.edu. The result of the checkuser was inconclusive.

User:Hkelkar

Hkelkar was later involved in another sockpuppetry case filed by User:TerryJ-Ho, who also suspected him of being a sockpuppet for several reasons. I presented much of the evidence I discussed under User:128.83.131.139 at that case as well. During this sockpuppetry case, Hkelkar maintained that although Shiva's Trident had edited from 128.83.131.215 and 128.83.131.121, he would not edit from 128.83.131.139 because "would never come below the 8th floor of the RLM building at UT so he wouldn't access twist." Twist, as I've found out is a remote computational Linux machine, and like many of the other computers in the Physics department of the University of Texas, the students "can connect to any of the general-purpose Physics machines remotely via SSH." I maintain that this is how Shiva's Trident and Hkelkar used two different IP's concurrently both on Wikipedia and the IRC discussion. Shiva's Trident would access twist remotely from another computer on campus or the Road Runner IP. Hkelkar has been the subject of his own request for checkuser, the outcome of which was that it was likely that Shiva's Trident and Hkelkar are the same user.

I have quite a lot more evidence to add that shows that they are indeed the same person, but my statement is somewhat long already.

What I'm requesting here is that the Arbitration Committee look into this case of sockpuppetry and disruption by Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident/Subhash bose and make a conclusive decision on whether or not they are indeed the same person. There are some admins who believe they are, while others do not. User:Dmcdevit has recently blocked Shiva's Trident because he has found further evidence that there is sockpuppetry involved here, and he has advised me to take this case to the arbitration committee because it has already been the subject of mediations, several sockpuppetry cases, and two requests for checkuser. BhaiSaab talk 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of the parties above were not added by me. BhaiSaab talk 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hkelkar

Add:Please also look at the following discussions where I have posted the things that I have to say regarding this absurd matter: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

In particular, the posts by two admins addressed to me expressing their conclusion that I am not socking [3][4] Hkelkar 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this where we were involved prior to his filing this request.Hkelkar 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding this ridiculous claim of me "SSH'ing" to a UT computer from home, I'm sure that anyone who is familiar with co-axial broadband technology knows that uptime bandwidths are significantly lower than downtime bandwidths. Thus, if I am to SSH to a remote machine from a roadrunner connection (which used coaxial broadband) and run graphics applications, the lag time will be so significant that any practical use is virtually impossible. The only way to do it is to use a dedicated client/server system where a direct remote connection to the machine's slave server software (such as direct X access over ethernet) etc can be done. If you will run a port scan on the machine, you will see that no such service is listening in on eth0 or any external network interface. plus, it is only a sensible admin policy to not allow such dangerous services to out-of-lan users.Hkelkar 23:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there is no such thing as a "remote only" machine.Any networked machine can be accessed both locally and remotely.I have no need to do the latter as my home PC is powerful enough for my purposes and to suggest that I would use such elaborate and convoluted methods of subterfuge is, quite frankly, paranoid.Hkelkar 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that BhaiSaab has had a long history of stalking my edits, baiting me with politicized and anti-semitic statements and constantly edit-warring on several articles which I have been editing. He was blocked for making antisemitic comments [5], plus he has been warned several times by admins to cease and desist harassing me like in this case [6][7]Hkelkar 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you peruse the history page of the following articles:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&action=history specifically these:

[8] [9] [10] [11]

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&limit=500&action=history specifically these:

[12] [13]

You will notice a propensity for BhaiSaab to violate WP:STALK and engage in disruptive edit-warring.

Concerning TerryJ-Ho below, he has routinely attacked my Jewishness [14][15][16] and has constantly harassed me about it [17]. He has been repeatedly incivil to me [18] and been warned by an admin to desist this line of harassment [19].If more information is desired, I will assemble a case during the RfA process.Hkelkar 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I have not even heard of some of these "involved users" above.Hkelkar 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Dmcdevits claim of a "long block log" below, the claim is highly misleading as several of the blocks were quickly reversed as they were given erroneously (see the log yourselves). Plus, Bhaisaab has a far longer block log that has been filling up well before I got here [20].
Regarding DBachmann below,I thank him for his dispassionate analysis. I have freely admitted (per BhaiSaab's link to the irc session above) that I am personally acquainted with user Shiva's Trident. However, I feel that I have done a better job of being dispassionate in my edits than he has been so I believe I have met DBachmann's criteria for scholastic objectivity.Please see this for a summary of my views.Hkelkar 09:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TerryJ-Ho

While this editor may well hide behind technology,I would rather take into consideration - a pattern on working with similar articles with same tone and same language.The very first misuse of the WP when Subhash posed as Pussyamitra Sunga was identified by me[21] on the basis of his language initially and am not wrong on this account here again.
I have noted a certain continuity of for example use of phrase "bear in mind" - Subhash Bose against "bear in mind" - Hkelkar- while I have given several examples before in the RFCU's.Working with people I know that everyone's language is different and people are prone to use similar words inadverdently.
As Subhash Bose he denied the suspected sock Pussyamitra Sunga was a sock - saying that both were brothers.That case was nailed on account of an email sent through the same account rather than a simple Check User or admission from him.
IMHO this person's edits so far satisfy completely as can be seen in the edit history.all the characterstics of SockpupetsTerryJ-Ho 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As in the case of Netaji - User: Bakaman is always seen in to support User:Kelkar.Secondly, they both are prone to raking up past histories rather than remaining on the plane of discussion, for which I have repeatedly warned.[22]
It is an established practice on the part of Shiva's trident,HKelkar and Bakasuprman to call other users "Anti-Hindu" - this being also used against the independent sources whose writings they do not agree.On the other hand they try to present writers with Hindutva leanings as neutral.After a recent block on Hkelkar - Bakaman reacted thus
The HKelkar avatar has been trying to present himself as Jewish or Jew.A different version of the sequence of talks is available on my talk page.He has actively participated in the discussion on his own free will, even though some of his claims are difficult to absorb...say for example asking me not to call him Jew but Jewish at the same time using the same term himself.
Given their propensity to mix up serious issues of gaming the system with historical acounts of interactions with other users that they see in the context of Anti-X,Y,Z.These issues should not be mixed here but handled separately TerryJ-Ho 07:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few users above as they had extensive experience on working with eithr HKelkar or his suspected socks.TerryJ-Ho 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question - Is a machine IP the only way to prove one to be sockpuppet?

Statement by Bakasuprman

This is merely one in a series of anti-Hindu attacks initiated by a cabal of users with little to contribute to Wikipedia. Please also look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Subhash_bose for other evidence. In fact go look at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bakasuprman initiated by TerryJ-Ho's fellow user User:Geek1975. BhaiSaab is up with User:Subhash_bose (the old name of User:Shiva's Trident) in the number of blocks garnered. He has 9 blocks himself and a very diverse block log.

To combat Terry's spurious accusations, I myself use words and edit similar articles to Shiva's Trident and Hkelkar, am I a sock? (Oh wait, someone tried that in SSP:Bakasuprman).Bakaman Bakatalk 03:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dmc - I'm not stupid to call a Sysop anti-Hindu (at least without a history of anti-Hindu actions), my usage of the word was used to signify a pattern in BhaiSaab's and TerryJ-Ho's edits.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

I'll have to recuse for being the blocking party, so here's my rationale. I'm not anti-Hindu and, despite the conspiracies by Bakasuprman above, this block was based solely upon technical evidence. I performed the checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar, and determined that since Hkelkar and Subhash bose were both editing from the University of Texas, and the same articles with similar behavior, it was a likely case of sockpuppetry. He, of course, claimed they were two different people at UT that know each other well. Subhash bose (now named Shiva's Trident) stopeed editing soon after and no one blocked. However, after being given further evidence by email by another administrator, which, based on a google search of their two email IDs, which both connected to one real University of Texas person, connected the two, I decided to just block. I told BhaiSaab to take the case against Hkelkar (main acount) here. He has a long block log [23] for edit warring and other disruption, and was unresponsive to my own warning not very long ago. ArbCom should accept the case. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dbachmann

It is not my impression that Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of anyone. In general, it is difficult to distinguish sock from meatpuppets in this area, since we are looking at a group of editors with similar backgrounds and aims who communicate off-wiki. I referred to this as the "Bose-Singh continuum" after two of the most notorious trolls / sock artists, and, again, it is not my impression that Hkelkar is part of it. At some point, Wikipedia should simply not care to establish if one particular account is a sock of another, but treat accounts which show "hivemind" characteristics as 'effective' socks. If the arbcom is going to look into this, they should take the opportunity to review Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) who may not be an actual sock (although this edit suggests otherwise), but who is certainly part of the 'continuum' and who with his raving paranoia of "anti-Hindu cabals" certainly isn't helping the project [24] dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi great (talk · contribs) has emailed me some intriguing factoids, suggesting that Hkelkar may be personally acquainted with the sock artists of the 'continuum' at least. What saddens me in particular is that they seem to be based at the physics department of an American university. Being from a physics background myself, I tend to hope that physicists are detached, rational intellects, not immature zealots wallowing in puerile deception, but I know of course that this is a naive generalisation :\ I would recommend to these editors that they just once and for all state their real life identity, as I do myself, and edit honestly and honourably. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a community game. dab (ᛏ) 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Shell Kinney

The list of involved parties frequently shows up on WP:PAIN and other admin noticeboards to report each other for various violations. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, not as sockpuppet confirmation, but to take a look at the conduct of these disputants. Shell babelfish 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0)

H. Elwood Gilliland

Initiated by Nandesuka at 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Nandesuka

Someone assuming the name of H. Elwood Gilliland has used over 20 named sockpuppets and innumerable anonymous accounts to insert vanity references to "himself" and his projects in many articles. He has been most active in the Online creation and now-deleted NiMUD article, but was active elsewhere as well. In the course of doing this, he has used multiple (proven by checkuser) sockpuppets to cast multiple votes on AfD comments, some of which influenced the outcome of the discussion. When his articles of choice are un-semiprotected, he edits them from anonymous IP addresses, some of which edits have left dispositive evidence as to the identity of the editor. When the articles are semi-protected, he uses registered accounts and avails himself of resources such as WP:RFPP and WP:PAIN to make the case that I am oppressing him. Applying my discretion, I had indicated to this user that while he is free to edit, he is not free to act disruptively and insert improperly sourced vanity references to himself, and have applied blocks until he indicates that he will stop. Since I have now substantively edited the Online creation article, where previously I was only acting in an administrative capacity, I'm no longer comfortable continuing in that manner, and feel that this should go before the Arbcom or the community. Nandesuka 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

USER:Cbuhl79

Initiated by Blaxthos at 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Primary Parties

Witnesses

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Summary

USER:Cbuhl79 has continually abused Wikipedia policies and misapplied templates, admittedly out of spite.

Statement by complaintant Blaxthos

After one successful RfC user cbuhl79 immediately called for a second RfC on the same content, attempting to find other policies (WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS) to use to effect changes he deemed necessary (wikilawyering). Cbuhl79 then made several unilateral changes (defying complete consensus) and possibly violated WP:3RR in the process. Cbuhl79 went to several places to try and solicit support (policy talk pages, uninvolved user pages, etc.), but was unable to find any editors who agreed with him. After the second RfC failed, user initiated a malformed RfARB, and on talk pages he admitted to continuing the conflict because he didn't like another user's conduct (me). The ArbCom summarily rejected his request, and Cbuhl79 was asked to let the issue die. User Cbuhl79 then went to my userspace and my talkspace and applied WP:NPA templates, without giving any examples of such (because they do not exist). This seems a very blatant abuse of wikipedia policies. I request the ArbCom to review this case -- if accepted I will provide a detailed timeline (with examples) of countless violations by Cbuhl79. /Blaxthos 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just discovered that cbuhl79 also misreported me to the WP:NPA noticeboard, further abusing WP:AGF as well as violating the proper protocol (just as he did with his RfARB). This only makes the case seem that much more serious. /Blaxthos 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cbuhl79

I am not opposed to arbitration in this case to examine my own behavior and that of Blaxthos. This user has repeatedly and in bad faith accused me of vague policy violations instead of discussing content.

During a content discussion, Blaxthos explicitly stated[26] that he did not believe I was acting in good faith based on the totally unfounded[27] assertion that I was trying keep a statement out of an introduction. From this point on, the user has continually attempted to squelch any further attempts I have made to discuss the issue by repeatedly accusing me of violating Wikipedia policies [28][29]. He has also made rude remarks to other editors who were previously uninvolved in the discussion (note the edit summary) [30]. He repeatedly rebuffed every attempt at discussion by other (previously uninvolved) editors by telling them I was violating numerous policies, and advising them to read the entire discussion to see evidence[31]. At least one editor did, and thought that I was acting in good faith [32].

I filed my earlier WP:RFARB thinking that the Arbitrators could rule on the content dispute, and also on the behavior of this editor[33]. The RfARB was rejected on the basis of it being a content dispute. One of the Arbitrators advised that I seek help from admins on the behavior before trying arbitration.

I went to the NPA message board to make a post about his behavior. After posting, I realized that I should have put an NPA template on his user page as a first step. Note that I removed my post from the NPA board less than a minute later[34], placed the NPA template on his page, and indicated that I was willing to let the matter end[35].

Also note that I only made content changes after several other editors agreed[36]. Note also that Blaxthos restricted his notification of this RfARB only to editors who explicitly agreed with his position on content of this RfARB. This is significant because he earlier found it appopriate to notify numerous users of my RfARB[37] and suggested I was somehow hiding the RfARB[38] Cbuhl79 20:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

Appeal by Bonaparte

Initiated by 212.182.63.102 (it's Bonaparte talk) at 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Statement by Bonaparte talk

I was banned just under a year ago. I would like to be unblocked now, I know Wikipedia's policys and will not violate them and want to contribute for the good of Wikipedia. Sorry for not editing under my real account but I can't because it is blocked.-- Bonaparte talk 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Scobell302

Banned users are likely to have their edits reverted on sight, regardless of merit. IMO, Bonaparte, it would have been better for you to send an e-mail to the unblocken-l mailing list, to avoid your edits being disregarded and/or reverted. In addition, using open proxies isn't a good idea, either, since they will be blocked sooner or later. Scobell302 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Elvis Presley (User Onefortyone)

Initiated by Lochdaleat 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  • Lochdale
  • Onefortyone
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This matter (and this user) has been subject to several [blocks],[arbitration] (which was reopened several times) and [and banning] before.

Statement by Lochdale

This request for arbitration is as a result of one User's obsession with the Presley article. He continues to add questionable materials to the article and backs it up by either obscure or selective quotations. This matter has been going on for more than a year and has involved User Onefortyone in numerous edit wars. He has created other pages simply to continue to push his agenda (See here] and his numerous edits to this [article]). He has been roundly criticzed by his own [mentor] and by another editor [here]. Whenever he is backed into a corner he routinely accuses the other contributor of being a sockpuppet (See [here] and [here]. They are the actions of a quintisential bully. His current edits to the Presley article include a section called [The Elvis Cult and its critics"] which is ladden with POV and original research or selective quotation of obscure articles that very few people other than Onefortyone has read. When compared to other articles of a similar vein such as John Lennon the Presley article lacks credibility and lends weight to criticisms of Wikipedia itself. I don't see how this issue can go away (as it has gone of for so long) unless this user is curtailed from pushing his agenda. Thanks. Lochdale 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Onefortyone

User:Lochdale seems to be an Elvis Presley fan (see this contribution or this discussion) whose primary aim is to harass me from the beginning of his appearance on Wikipedia. The majority of his edits deal with Presley and my contributions to the Elvis Presley page. He is frequently deleting my edits, although they are well sourced. See, for instance, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. [44], etc. etc. I don't think that this is O.K.

I do not understand what should be wrong with my edits, as I contributed to many different sections of the article (Elvis's youth, his parents, his music, his manager Colonel Tom Parker, his movies, his relationships, his consumption of drugs, the allegations of racism, the FBI files on Elvis, the Elvis cult and its critics, etc.) and all of my contributions are supported by many independent sources. I have quoted from mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. Other users are also of the opinion that the critical section on the 'The Elvis cult and its critics', which was recently created by me but frequently deleted by Lochdale (see [45], [46]), includes "a lot of great information " but needs some rewording. See this discussion and this one, in which another user says, "I still think removing it was a little bit extreme. It was filled with facts, lots of it. Both about those who liked elvis and those who did not like him." However, Lochdale repeatedly deleted the whole paragraph.

Significantly, Lochdale has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance to the Elvis article. Instead, his first edits were attacks against me. See his first contribution here, and other early contributions.

Lochdale frequently, and intentionally, makes false declarations. In his very first contribution, for instance, he falsely claimed that Albert Goldman, who has written a critical biography on Elvis, "made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual. Indeed, no credible source has ever made that sort of assertion." The facts clearly prove that Lochdale is wrong. In his Elvis book of 1981, Goldman indeed suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Some other published books on Elvis and a recent article by Elvis expert Alanna Nash say that the singer may have had a homosexual relationship/affair with his close friend Nick Adams. However, as these claims are controversial, some months ago I refrained, as a compromise, from re-including them in the Elvis article.

What is more, Lochdale is frequently, and without evidence, questioning the sources I have used and has also falsely claimed on the Elvis talk page that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". See [47]. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in his book which is also proved by many photographs. See [48], [49], [50], etc. Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." (Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.336, 339) The same author also says that during the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric" (Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.339-340). And he emphasizes that in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day" (Last Train to Memphis, p.410). Elaine Dundy, also a reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale is frequently removing the well-sourced quote from the article, falsely claiming that it is POV, although the direct source (Dundy), is given. See [51], [52], [53], etc.

Lochdale has also falsely claimed that Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, "never lived with Presley", although it is a historical fact that Presley's father, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. In her book Elvis and Gladys (2004), Elaine Dundy writes (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys [Elvis's mother] had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him."

So much for the reliability of this user who has the audacity to take me to arbitration and to claim that my contributions are POV and original research and that I am pushing an agenda. Lochdale is the person who is pushing an agenda by frequently removing paragraphs he doesn't like from the Elvis article.

To sum up: As everybody can see, I am a frequent contributor to the Elvis article, dealing with many different topics. On the other hand, Lochdale's history, as a whole, shows that his primary aim is to remove well-sourced passages I have written. He is constantly, and falsely, claiming that my edits are filled with POV and original research, which is not true as all of my sources are cited. Significantly, he himself seems to support the Trivia section of the article which primarily includes fan stuff. See this discussion.

As there is such a long-time edit war between us two, there was some suspicion that Lochdale may be identical or somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, my opponent in former edit wars. See [54]. The arbcom knows that Ted Wilkes was frequently engaged in deleting or rewriting passages concerning the homosexuality of personalities. Therefore, this user was banned from any article related to homo- or bisexuality by the arbcom, but his sockpuppets continued editing on the topic. Therefore, he is now banned for one year. Interestingly, Lochdale also removed paragraphs from Wikipedia articles that dealt with gay-related topics, as Wilkes repeatedly did in the past. See [55], [56], [57], [58]. And he frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs which proved that Elvis had problems with heterosexual relationships. See, for instance, [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Indeed, Lochdale's very first edits were on the question whether Elvis may have had homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a new user who apparently appeared on the Wikipedia scene for the first time and claimed not to be an Elvis fan. See [64], [65], [66], [67].

Interestingly, some IPs used by Wilkes in the past have claimed similar things as Lochdale. For instance, IP 66.61.69.65 admits to be in close contact with many of Elvis's friends, former employees and family, and claims that Elvis, while married, slept with hundreds of other women, that his step-mother Dee is mentally unstable, etc. (see [68]). IP 24.165.212.202 similarly admits to be "someone who knew Elvis all of his life" and says, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [69]. IP 66.61.69.65 also says that "there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and they most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM." See [70]. Significantly, User:Lochdale was also constantly talking about "over 2,000 books written on Elvis".

Lochdale even said on 19 December 2005, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [71]. How should a new user know all this, if he was not deeply involved in this kind of discussion months or years before under a different user identity?

To my mind, it could well be that Lochdale is somehow related to Ted Wilkes or, alternatively, part of an Elvis fan group of which Wilkes is also a member. It may be no coincidence that he is using the same strategy as Wilkes alias DW did in the past over and over again: deliberately claiming things that are not true but support his own view, attacking other users who do not agree with him, and removing content which is not in line with his personal opinion. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly took other users and even administrators to arbitraton. Is this just mere coincidence? However, a request for checkuser about the matter didn't provide evidence that Lochdale's and Wilkes's IPs are identical. Notwithstanding, I am not yet convinced that there is really no connection between Lochdale and Wilkes. Administrator Jtdirl admitted that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". To my mind, there are far too many coincidences in this case that still suggest a link between Lochdale and Wilkes. It should be noted that DW alias Ted Wilkes operated under many different IPs and, in order to disguise his real identity, seems to have used lots of different PCs.

However, Lochdale may not be identical with this user, but there is the possibility that Lochdale may be a meatpuppet. To my mind, it could well be that there is a small circle of Elvis fans who are part of the world-wide Elvis industry which has already been criticized by Professor David S. Wall. These fans may know each other and, alternately, are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and accusing me of pushing an agenda, simply because some of my critical edits, which are supported by many independent sources and help to get a balanced view of Elvis, are not in line with their all too positive view of the megastar, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, because I am under probation. Indeed, all of my contributions are well sourced. Among these many independent sources are reputable Elvis biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and critical university studies. What should be wrong with this? On the other hand, I have not yet seen a single contribution by Lochdale that includes a direct quote from a reputable published source concerning Elvis Presley. All he can do is removing my contributions. That's the difference between us two.

Shorter statement by User:Onefortyone

User:Lochdale's primary aim is to harass me from the beginning of his appearance. The majority of his edits deal with Presley and my contributions to the Elvis Presley page. He frequently deletes my edits, although they are supported by mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. See [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. [77], etc. Other users also think that the section on the 'The Elvis cult and its critics', which was frequently deleted by Lochdale (see [78], [79]), includes "a lot of great information", is "filled with facts" etc. See [80], [81].

Lochdale has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance to the Elvis article. Instead, he frequently questions the sources I have used. His first edits were attacks against me. See [82], [83].

Lochdale repeatedly, and intentionally, made false declarations. He claimed that Albert Goldman "made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual." In fact, Goldman suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Lochdale claimed that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". See [84]. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in Last Train to Memphis, p.336, 339-340, 410 etc. See also [85], [86], [87]. Elaine Dundy, another reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale frequently removes the quote from the article. See [88], [89], [90]. Lochdale also falsely claimed that Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, "never lived with Presley", although they lived together at Graceland. See Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.329-330; Robert Segal, Hero Myths: A Reader (2000), p.213. So much for the reliability of this user.

Lochdale is the person who is pushing an agenda by frequently removing paragraphs he doesn't like. Lochdale's history shows that his primary aim is to remove my texts, claiming that they are filled with POV and original research, although all of my sources are cited.

There was some suspicion that Lochdale may be identical or somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, my opponent in former edit wars. See [91]. Like Wilkes, Lochdale removed paragraphs that dealt with gay-related topics (see [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]) and Elvis's problems with heterosexual relationships (see [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]). Lochdale's first edits were on Elvis's possible homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a user who apparently appeared on Wikipedia for the first time. See [102], [103], [104], [105]. Some IPs used by Wilkes claimed similar things as Lochdale, for instance, that "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" allegedly contradict my edits (see [106]). IP 24.165.212.202 said, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [107]. See also IP 66.61.69.65.

Lochdale even said on 19 December 2005, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [108]. How should a new user know all this, if he was not deeply involved in this kind of discussion months or years before under a different user identity?

To my mind, it could well be that Lochdale is somehow related to Wilkes or, alternatively, part of an Elvis fan group of which Wilkes is also a member. Wilkes repeatedly took other users and administrators to arbitration. However, checkuser said that Lochdale and Wilkes have different IPs. Notwithstanding, Administrator Jtdirl admitted that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". However, Lochdale may not be Wilkes, but he may be a meatpuppet.

Observations by uninvolved editor User:Wizardry_Dragon

At first, I was unsure why this case is being brought forth to the Abitration Comittee. The user in question has been barred from editting the topic, they persisted, and their ban should be renewed. Their behaviour has been conistently destructive to the community and they have been subject to administrative action for it. [109] [110]. The prior arbitration is balanced, and still relevant. I feel the remedies there should be enforced.

That said, User:Lochdale's conduct has not been exemplary either. He has been edit-warring against the reversions and additions of Onefourtyone, and that editor's probationary status is not a ticket to bypass the Three Revert Rule and other rules of Wikipedia. (S)He has been removing content that (s)he does not agree with, which is against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. The edits of Onefourtyone are not the only case where he has done this.

In short, I find there's enough misconduct on both sides to warrant a case - however that descision is not mine to make :)

I did some mining in the edit history of the article. The following edits may be of use to the ArbCom should they accept this case:

Edits by Onefortyone

Possible POV-Pushing:

Some edit-warring:

Edits by Lochdale

Possible POV-Pushing:

Definetely POV-Pushing:

Some edit-warring:

This only goes back 150 edits. I didn't want to mine too far in case the case is not heard.

Statement by totally uninvolved editor User:JBKramer

Onefourtyone is on probabtion regarding his conduct on bios of celebrities from his prior arbcomm remidy (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation). He was, in fact, banned from the Elvis article by Jkelly from 27 July to 27 September. [125]. Is this issue ripe for ArbCom, or does the prior remidy suffice? JBKramer 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am on probation since 2005 for including one or two passages in the Elvis Presley article which were not well sourced, and significantly, it was my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes who took me to arbitration. This user was banned for one year in March, and from that time on all of my contributions were, and are, well sourced. Second, this year I was banned from the Elvis article for some time by an administrator who was part of the edit war. Very interesting indeed, but I didn't take this case to arbitraton. See [126], [127]. Third, after that ban expired, as a compromise, I did no longer add the controversial material to the article which supports the view that Elvis may have had an affair with Nick Adams, although some sources say that this was the case. Indeed, the last few months I have only contributed well-sourced material to Wikipedia, frequently citing every source I have used. Other users do support these contributions. User:Lochdale seems to be the only user who frequently deletes what I have written. He is the driving force in the edit war. So why should this issue be ripe for arbcom? Because an Elvis fan does not like critical material contributed to the article? Onefortyone 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I believe that this issue is ripe again given Onefortyone's obsession with the Presley article. For example, he just misquoted me (which goes to selective quotation/editing) when he says that I misquoted Guralnik (considered the best Presley biographer) when I said Guralnik never placed Adams and Presley together. Sure he put them together but in no way, shape or form does he suggest they were anything but friends. A minor quibble but it goes to the general issue that this user misquotes or cleverly uses quotes from reputable sources to buttress less than questionable sources. Lastly, he once again resorts to the bullying tactics of calling someone a sockpupper or a meat puppet or part of a non-existent Presley 'cabal'. [Here]is another example of what is, in effect, an attempt to bully other usersI think it is telling that a number of editors have banned this user before. I may be guilty of careless editing but at least my motives are sanguine. Lochdale 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I think I did it again above! Lochdale 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

I’m not involved directly in this dispute or have even edited on the articles in question, though I came across it when voting in the deletion of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau and also the FA nomination for elvis presley. Unfortunately, my opinion on both resulted in me being accused of being a suckpuppet by this user onefortyone [128]. In light of the FA nomination I decided to have a look at some of the edits that were being made to the elvis article, and it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that Onefortyone has recently violated his/her previous arbiration ruling which I’ve just had a look at[129]. The following statement was added to the elvis article by user onefortyone [130] (followed by others also relating to Elvis' sex-life): “Elvis, according to his own words, didn't make love to [Anita Wood].”, which was claimed to be cited from a book called ‘Elvis and Me’. I checked out the source, and found that not only does the statement in question not exist, but it is directly contradicted by this excerpt from the book itself (p.98) (you can find it using amazon [131]):

(Priscilla) "You mean you didn't make love to [Anita Wood] the whole four years you went with her?" (elvis) "Just to a point. Then I stopped. It was difficult for her too, but that's just how I feel”.

Maybe instead of starting a new arbitration, the previous one could be properly enforced first. I don’t have time to check and verify – nor do I really want to either – all the other supposedly well sourced information that has been added to articles by this user, but someone should because I suspect that, like the edit I just mentioned, there is some more fabrication going on. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your quote proves that Elvis didn't have sexual intercourse (the human form of copulation) with Anita Wood. They stopped before doing that, which was difficult for both. That's what I said in the artcle, in shorter form. Onefortyone 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by complete stranger blaxthos

Just for S&G's I took a look at a few random edits by Onefortyone, and I have to agree with the other editors -- in almost every edit I randomly selected I found information I can only attribute to WP:OR. Additionally, I was unable to substantiate any of the claims made the few times sources were cited. I noticed consistant violations of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV as well. I haven't bothered to give examples here, as the other editors have done a good job of such already. I have no connection to, involvment with, or have made any contribution to the article in question. /Blaxthos 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: in almost every edit I randomly selected I found information I can only attribute to WP:OR. Additionally, I was unable to substantiate any of the claims made the few times sources were cited. I noticed consistant violations of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV as well. I haven't bothered to give examples here... Would you please stick close to the facts and provide evidence for your false claims. In almost every edit concerning the Elvis Presley article I am accurately attributing my contribution in full to the author and source I have used (incl. the exact page numbers). See, for instance, [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], etc. etc. As far as I can see I am the only user doing so. Onefortyone 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/1/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (t/c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Androids in Dragon Ball

discussion removed

Folks, this is the section of the page for clarification of prior arbitration rulings. The dispute resolution process may be found here. Thatcher131 02:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:
  • Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.
Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED

Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.ableTalk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on what to do for other user/ Extraordinary Machine

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Velten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

  • First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
  • He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
  • Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that it is not a good idea for admins to block in the case of disputes in which they are involved. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is permitted, but obviously this is becoming a personal dispute. Another problem is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Eternal_Equinox_placed_on_Probation provides that Veltan may only be blocked for the maximum of a week and Extraordinary Machine is passing out 3 week blocks. It is very hard to say if the ip is Veltan, but it does seem likely. The dispute seems remarkably petty. I just don't get it. Fred Bauder 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I don't have any opinion about the dispute between Extraordinary Machine and Eternal Equinox, but we're getting somewhat contradictory clarifications about the maximum block thing. When I requested permission to pageban EE for more than the maximum week back in September[141], Tony Sidaway (clerk) replied, with every appearance of relaying arbcom policy, that there was no maximum: "Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action."[142] I assume that's what Extraordinary Machine has been going by. However, Tony also recommended consultation on WP:AN. Perhaps that would be Extraordinary Machine's best policy? The problem with him leaving blocking to other admins is that there are only a few admins who care to, or dare, act in this complicated ArbCom case (see recent posts on User talk:Velten for expressions of this sentiment) and some of us (=me) have no comprehension of the intricacies of pop music articles. You could easily run out of remedy-enforcing admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This is a rather long response, so please bear with me. I agree with Bishonen here, with the exception that I wouldn't really say there is a content dispute (if that's what is meant by "dispute"), because a) I'd stopped edit-warring with Velten before the three-week block, or the one-week block for that matter, for reasons I have outlined below, and b) disagreements over article content certainly wasn't Velten's main reason for initiating the dispute:
  1. Firstly, it's already been established (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox and the evidence subpage) that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are one and the same. Already, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe her comments should be taken with not so much as a grain of salt, but several boxes of Morton's.
  2. The main reason for the week-long block wasn't that she was edit-warring in a manner similar to her conduct on Cool (song) article (over which she attempted to claim ownership), but that she had edited the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles (and sneakily reverted one of my changes to the former in the process) just hours after I had done so. She has a long history of stalking and harassing other users, including myself; see the RFAr evidence subpage, [143] and [144]. (Velten has said that my evidence can be explained by the fact that we both edit pop music-related articles, which does absolutely nothing to explain her "stalking" edits to my own userspace or articles watchlisted by user:Bishonen and user:Giano, who never edit pop music articles.)
  3. At Talk:Cool (song), user:Velten (Eternal Equinox's new username) removed a link to an old AFD discussion that had been initiated in good faith. She has a history of tampering with other people's comments and attempting to conceal discussions on that talk page that contain comments with which she disagrees; see, for example, [145], [146] (note the edit summary here) and [147]. She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks.
  4. Now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Remedies says that EE/Velten can be blocked for disruption "up to a week in the event of repeat offenses". If a user is blocked for doing something and then, after removing the relevant messages from their talk page, does the same thing again as soon as they're unblocked, I'd think it would be appropriate to place a longer block. With regard to EE/Velten specifically, user:Bishonen (as he mentioned above) said on this page "I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor" [148], to which user:Tony Sidaway replied "[you] can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action." [149] The next option after one week on the block page dropdown menu was one month, which I thought was unreasonable, so I placed a three week block instead.
  5. Tony Sidaway also said to consult on WP:AN, which I forgot to do initially but did after Velten submitted a request for unblock and user:Thatcher131 expressed concerns to me about the block. I said in my message that if anybody believed the block should be shortened to one week, they could feel free to do so and I wouldn't undo it. No-one undid the block; indeed, no-one other than Thatcher replied to the message. [150] Soon after, JzG (talk · contribs) declined the unblock request (citing Velten's attempts to game the system) [151], after which Velten accused him of not actually reviewing it at all [152].
  6. Later, the 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) IP edited Cool (song). The IP originates from the Toronto area [153] [154]; the edit summary was very similar to Velten's, but that wasn't the main tip-off for me. Velten's claims that a Toronto-based IP user editing a Gwen Stefani article, who not only edits it but reverts an edit made the day before, is not her, simply beggars belief. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I reset the block. Velten posted a second request for unblock, including a demand to have my sysop powers suspended [155]; Redvers (talk · contribs) declined it and protected Velten's talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. [156]
I understand why this may appear "petty", but that's the problem: aside from irritating other users, her disruptive behaviour seems to be designed purely to establish how much she can get away with. "[S]he constantly attacks, trolls, teases, provokes, tries to get a rise, pecks away", Bishonen once said, and I think this sums it up perfectly. Her recent behaviour and comments such as [157] and [158] demonstrate pretty conclusively that her behaviour has changed little (if at all) since she started editing in mid-2005, and that she refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As she's made clear on her talk page and in her editing elsewhere, her view is that she needs (not just wants) to get her way, those who disagree with her are wrong (and haven't read into it, or are misusing their powers and must have them removed immediately, or are making up stories or excuses, or something else), and that's all that needs to be said.
I won't pretend to know what the long term solution is, but I do know that the problem she poses here is extremely serious. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.

  1. He says it's been established that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are the same editor. That is a rather bold statement since all the editors who participated in the RFAr are under no obligation to assume who is who; they have not met Adam or me and if that indeed was concluded there, it would be out of nothing more than ensuring that only one account be used to edit Wikipedia, even if they felt that there really were more than one person. What alarm bells should be ringing? You need to get your facts straight.
  2. Extraordinary Machine claims that he first blocked Velten because I harrassed him on Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song). There are no signs whatsoever in the past month that indicate I harrassed him — here, here and here. If this is considered "harrassment", I'd hate to see what he considers "personal attacks". We had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chart at Promiscuous (song), and I found it peculiar. On the talk page, he posted this claiming "As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing". The only logical assumption is that he posted the link to the ArbCom case in order to break my defense down in case others read the talk page. They would see that I am a "disruptive user" and agree with his view. He's also done this on Talk:Cool (song), Talk:Mariah Carey and Talk:Pieces of Me.
  3. That request for deletion was not initiated in good faith. You didn't have the right to use that as one of your "reasons" for blocking me. You "considered" it to have been issued properly, but I didn't. Also, could you please provide links within the last four weeks that clearly show I've been "harrassing" you?
  4. So you're saying that you'd place me on a three-week block for making this edit and this edit? Really?
  5. After Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) did not respond to his initial backlash of the three-week block, I assumed he had forgotten about it or was not interested in becoming tangled in the web. I placed an unblock message on my user talk page and was declined by JzG (talk · contribs). He said I was "gaming the system". Immediately I was taken back and absolutely disgusted with this user's response. Gaming the system? What does that mean? This is gaming the system? I posted a statement here claiming that the user was full of nonsense and didn't review my block at all for that very reason. Gaming the system made no sense in this case of a block. Interestingly, one user claimed that my block was indeed overlooked.
  6. 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) edited Cool (song) recently with an edit summary that I found very striking because it was written in a style that I typically use; this worried me a great deal because I figured Extraordinary Machine would assume that it was me, which seemed like the only logical case. It was, and he reblocked and told me to stop evading my bans. I said that it was not me and that it was someone out to get me here; I also said in that same edit that if I was going to evade my ban, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious that it was me by writing a fairly similar edit summary. And today, though I already know this will be overlooked as make believe, I found out it was indeed someone who strongly dislikes me who made those "Velten-like" edits.
  7. Extraordinary Machine claims he reset the three-week Velten ban because of something I said here, which was posted well after he already initiated the block. If anything, he reset the ban upon noticing that the edit summary was similar to mine. Administrators are not supposed to lie to the Wikipedian government.
  8. I request that Extraordinary Machine be banned from blocking me altogether and editing User talk:Velten. At first I accepted his one-week ban because I felt I had abused my ruling, but after that, it was becoming nothing more than a game to him: his power and my weakness. He claims that I'm editing articles that he's edited and even though they are music articles, I have done this to Bishonen and Giano before. That was long ago and I have no intention on interacting with them again. If I am continuously blocked for editing a music article around the same time he does, I'll always be blocked. This is abuse of the ArbCom ruling and he is too involved in the case to be permitted to come to such conclusions.
  9. What am I to do about Adam wanting to edit from an account?
64.231.70.117 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I am concerned that a three wekk ban exceeds the proscribed remedy, and I am also concerned that Extraodinary Machine may be too "involved" at this point to be making the blocks himself. However, I do not know enough about the situation to be comfortable unilaterally overturning the ban. Also, while I understand EM's comment about arbitration remedies being permissive, not limiting, I do note that the remedy is quite specific about allowing Velten to be blocked for a week; after 5 offenses, the maximum block time increases to a year. I personally would perfer to follow that schedule; if Velten is as disruptive as EM says then it won't be long before she reaches the 6th block, which could easily be 3 weeks or a month with no disagreement. Thatcher131 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We did not include a block up to a year in this case. Maximum block is a week. Fred Bauder 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake for not checking again. Thatcher131 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a really obvious problem with the logic being exerted here. This user (a school boy in Canada who uses new account names when blocked, evades blocks routinely, and does this by using his school library's computers, whatever name you want to settle on for him) has consistently gone to assert his will over all others and childishly followed those who have prevented his ownership. Since the user's interest is confined to pop idols, he's going to go into all of them and exert the same basic habits and personality. So, if EM is one of our best pop idol editors who does not engage in hostile editing and doesn't get injunctions laid on him, sooner or later HW/EE/V will show up (not to mention the vindictive element left over from EM's evidence in the rfar) and begin doing the same things he has done consistently. At that point, EM is not an involved editor: EM is an editor who has been involved. I.e. he did not initiate a conflict with EE/HW/V, but had V/EE/HW attach himself to EM's ongoing edits. The block is consistent with trying to prevent continual disruption of editing on these subjects. The RFAR demonstrated that the problem user had been remarkably consistent and unchanged in a year of activity. He has been virtually monomaniacal. We have no past evidence of EM behaving in such a manner, so it's strange to think that he is suddenly "picking on" a user who has demonstrated a deep commitment to violating editing courtesy. Geogre 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that, at some point, he will grow up. Fred Bauder 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drink to that. I just wonder that we're taking his martyrdom seriously at this particular point. He's not really complaining that newbie editor X blocked him, but that one of the people who has managed to work consensually and moderately on pop music has. EM might have been inappropriate, but it's just not as likely as that EE/HE/V has been picking at the article to try to get the last word, over and over and over. Geogre 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is little practical difference between a series of one-week blocks and a longer block, except that other editors will have to put up with a small number of disruptive edits to trigger each successive one week block. Without an amendment from Arbcom, it seems that longer blocks are disfavored at this time. I suggest unblocking Velten, and Geogre and I can make ourselves available as uninvolved administrators to reblock, assuming Velten does not "grow up." I already watchlist arbitration enforcement. Will this balance the desire to protect a nice editing environment for productive long-term editors with Arbcom's intent to give Velten a chance to grow up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs)
That sounds like a fine idea to me. But I have one problem still: how about EE? He is in fact not a boy, but a 21-year-old (...okay, fine, you can call him a boy if you want) and I'm a 24-year-old female. As long as EM is not involved in these blocks (because they've been questionable), I'm happy. Also, don't be fooled by Geogre's assertion that EM is the better pop music editor of us; that's a ridiculous statement and while he's definitely brought more music-related articles to GA status or a specific standard, this doesn't justify our — that being Adam's and mine — contributions. 64.231.75.70 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, while it may be redundant to announce now, I've completed EM's original three-week block and think I've entered the fourth week. I'm not positive though. 64.231.75.70 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't continue playing these silly little games with Velten; he knows exactly what he's been doing is purposefully disruptive and why he was blocked, so any further efforts to get him to admit this will be a waste of my time and that of most other editors here. I do agree with Thatcher131's suggestion to unblock Velten for the time being - if he decides to "grow up" as a result of this then that's that (though, unfortunately, I doubt this will happen); if he doesn't...well, he can be blocked again. (I think Geogre explained the situation accurately when he said it was a case of Velten following me across articles rather than a legitimate disagreement over content, but I'll refrain from placing blocks if I become as involved as I was before, although I didn't think I was involved too much.) I have a suspicion he's gone back to editing from his cloud of IPs anyway. Extraordinary Machine 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you did me a favour. Could you please provide evidence that I was harrassing you which led you to initiating a three-week ban? Your previous post had six essential points, each with several diffs and other links, with the exception of She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks, which was the reason why I brought this here in the first place. Some links would be appreciated. Velten 21:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still have not received suggestions about Eternal Equinox and his will to create a new account. Thoughts? Velten 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you consider your multiple 'personalities' to be in fact different people does not mean that we have to believe you. We are not obliged to pander to your fantasies or your disturbed mind - or your pretense at such, if that's the case. Different treatment for differing alleged "identities" is not going to occur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Machine has unblocked Velten so will see how he/she behaves going forward. I would suggest that Extraordinary Machine ask for a review before blocking, but it would not be inappropriate to block first if the circumstances warranted it and then post a request for review at the noticeboard or arbitration enforcement. I would also suggest a maximum block length of 1 week per Fred's comment. Of course, if Velten continues to be disruptive there will be little practical difference between a series of one week blocks applied every 8 or 9 days versus a single longer block. Thatcher131 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Thatcher131's proposal is fine. However, I don't think it's up to Morven to decide how many "personalities" I have or how many friends I have that edit Wikipedia. Once EE returns to Toronto, I'll tell him that he's free to create an account, unless you want him to edit from this account too, which he's somewhat protested to. Velten 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, playing Columbo here, assuming that what you have said on this page and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence#Overview of my history on Wikipedia are both correct, then you are Courtni, former owner of User:Hollow Wilerding and now User:Velten. Adam, who seems to have been a housemate, shared Hollow Wilderding with you, then when Hollow Wilerding got in trouble, he created User:Eternal Equinox. Since Eternal Equinox and Hollow Wilerding shared the same style and interests, he was eventually identified, and (he says) hounded, so he acted out. It also sounds like Adam is currently living with you but is moving out eventually.
Well. Hmm. We have numerous editors who are housemates or even married, and obviously share a computer, but they have different interests and different personalities, and are not disruptive, so the issue of identity never comes up. On the other hand, when two disruptive accounts share the same computer we have no choice but to assume they are controlled by the same person.
You're in a tough spot. Following continued disruptive editing you are restricted to one account. But you claim that "you" are two people. Shared accounts are not allowed, so assuming your story is true, Adam should definitely register and edit from a new account. If he does this secretly, and behaves himself, no one will ever know about it. If he resumes the disruptive behavior that got Eternal Equinox put on probation, he will probably be labeled as a Velten sockpuppet and both your accounts will be sanctioned. Harshly. I suggest that he announce his new account here and agree to submit to the same probation as Velten (which he deserves, being both Eternal Equinox and partly Hollow Wilerding), even though that might annoy the arbitrators who have heard the "it was my housemate" excuse about 10,000 times, and will now think I am hopelessly gullible. The only think I know for sure is that if checkuser ever identifies a disruptive account coming from your computer, you're going to get nailed, whether it's you, Adam, or the cat. (And I am only this gullible once.)
I'm more than a little dubious, and I'm posting this here rather than your talk page so I can be slapped down by the arbitrators if I'm out of line. But there is nothing especially unusal about my comments; as Mindspillage has said on more than one occasion, we have no way of knowing how many banned users have reformed and quietly come back under new identities; we only know about that ones that continue the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Bottom line: which kind are you? Thatcher131 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since Adam won't be back for a while (actually, he doesn't plan on moving out, but everything else you said was correct), there's no problem right now. Later, I hope that we can edit together. The reason he's a housemate of mine is because we share similar interests and therefore edit the same articles. It's not impossible, but I can see why everybody is so reluctant to accepting this as more than make believe. (We met at a Gwen Stefani fanclub for goodness sake! What more can I say?) If he registers a new account, I hope everything can simply settle down. Velten 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=84599088"