Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Case Opened on 02:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Case Closed on 21:01, 5 December 2006 (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.

Prior arbitration cases

 * Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone
 * Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone

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)

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,, , , ,. , 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, ), 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. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in his book which is also proved by many photographs. See, , , 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, , , 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. 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, , ,. And he frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs which proved that Elvis had problems with heterosexual relationships. See, for instance, , , , ,. 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, , ,.

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 ). 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":. 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. 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. 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, , , ,. , etc. Other users also think that the section on the 'The Elvis cult and its critics', which was frequently deleted by Lochdale (see, ), includes "a lot of great information", is "filled with facts" etc. See ,.

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,.

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. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in Last Train to Memphis, p.336, 339-340, 410 etc. See also, ,. Elaine Dundy, another reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale frequently removes the quote from the article. See, ,. 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. Like Wilkes, Lochdale removed paragraphs that dealt with gay-related topics (see, , , , ) and Elvis's problems with heterosexual relationships (see , , , , ). 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, , ,. 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 ). 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":. 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. 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.

Clerk notes

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

Removed threaded discussion. Moved comments of uninvolved editors to the talk page. Thatcher131 02:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

 * Accept to examine behaviour of all involved parties. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to look further until the statements are tidied. User:Onefortyone, yours is too long by a factor of two or three. Think 500 words maximum. This is about whether there is a case to answer. Charles Matthews 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone is sufficient if used. Fred Bauder 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Removal of other points of view is a violation.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban to prevent disruption
2) Users who disrupt editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from editing the affected articles.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone's editing pattern
1) continues to focus in many edits on reports of Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in females.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone's editing pattern
1.5) editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale's editing pattern
2) frequently reverts references to reports regarding Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in females.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information
3) has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley, Talk:Elvis_Presley


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of NPOV
4) Lochdale shows evidence of misunderstanding of Neutral point of view, removing a sourced alternative point of view with the comments "Removed POV", "Most Presley experts do not agree, again POV" , "Removing POV again" , "Removed POV" , "Removed POV" , "Removed selective and POV quotation" , and "Removed selective and POV quotes - again.".


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

Lochdale banned from Elvis Presley
1) Lochdale is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone on probation
2) Onefortyone remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

The log with respect to Onefortyone is at Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone.