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

1) Motion by User Lochdale:

I do hope this is the appropriate venue for this posting but based on the additional comments noted here, I would ask that user Onefortyone also be considered as to a ban on editing the Presley article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is very interesting that Lochdale, who repeatedly added false information both to the Elvis article and talk pages (see [1]), now "would ask that user Onefortyone also be considered as to a ban on editing the Presley article," although all of my contributions are well sourced and supported by direct quotes from mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. See [2], [3],[4]. From the beginning of his appearance, Lochdale's primary aim was to remove material I have written from the Elvis article (see [5]) and to disparage peer-reviewed studies I have used for my contributions (see [6]). As Lochdale didn't contribute substantial material to the Elvis article (see, for instance, [7], [8], [9], [10]) and only deleted entire paragraphs he doesn't like (saying, "just because I have not added any 'orginal material' to the article is meaningless. ... I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley ..."; see [11]), a mutual ban certainly would be in his interest. See also this statement by Lochdale which only supports my view. Onefortyone 23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What books or other references about Elvis Presley are you using? Fred Bauder 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MY main reference source is Peter Guralnik's two books on Presley (Last Train to Memphis and Careless Love. Both are very good books and are considered to be the definitive biographies on Presley. I also have several books by Greil Marcus as well as "Elvis and Me" written by his wife Priscilla Presley. I also have Me and a guy named Elvis by his best friend Jerry Schilling. I have a few other books from my father but they mostly deal with the kitschy stuff. Otherwise, I've gone to the used bookstore around the corner from our house and checked out a number of Presley books. There's a lot of them.Lochdale 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What books or other references about Elvis Presley are you using? Fred Bauder 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether Lochdale has actually used books by Guralnick and the other authors he claims to have read. See also this section of the Evidence page which clearly shows that Lochdale repeatedly made false claims concerning the content of these books. What is more, he has not yet given a single quote from one of these sources and didn't contribute substantial material to the Elvis article. He only removed well-sourced paragraphs I have written. He frequently misspells Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [12].

My sources are

• Martha Bayles (ed.), Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music (University of Chicago Press, 1996)
• Roger Beebe, Denise Fulbrook, Ben Saunders, Rock Over the Edge (Duke University Press, 2002)
• Helen Bevington, The World and the Bo Tree (Duke University Press, 1991)
• Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis (University of Illinois Press, 2000)
• Roger D. Blackwell, Tina and Kristina Stephan, Brands That Rock: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the World of Rock and Roll (John Wiley and Sons, 2003)
• David Bret, Elvis: The Hollywood Years (Robson, 2001)
• Andrew Caine, Interpreting Rock Movies: The Pop Film and Its Critics in Britain (Manchester University Press, 2004)
• Paul A. Cantor, "Adolf, We Hardly Knew You." In New Essays on White Noise. Edited by Frank Lentricchia (Cambridge University Press, 1991)
• Buzz Cason, Living the Rock 'N' Roll Dream: The Adventures of Buzz Cason (Hal Leonard, 2004)
• Vernon Chadwick, ed., In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion, Proceedings of the first annual International Conference on Elvis Presley (Westview, 1997)
• Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is in Us: Journeys and Encounters, 1987-1994 (Verso, 1995)
• Jim Curtin, Elvis: Unknown Stories behind the Legend (Victor Gollancz, 1992)
• Linda Deutsch, "Elvis' Gal Pal Shares Memories", CBS News, Los Angeles, August 12, 2002
• Erika Doss, Elvis Culture (University of Kansas Press, 1999)
• Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys (Futura, 1986)
• Jerry Eden, Against the Wind (Xlibris Corporation, 1999)
• James Elkins, On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art (Routledge, 2004)
• Curtis W. Ellision, Country Music Culture: From Hard Times to Heaven (University Press of Mississippi, 1995)
• Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992)
• Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001)
• Suzanne Finstad, Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley (Century, 1997)
• Suzanne Finstad, Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (Century, 2001)
• Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1996)
• Joshua Gamson, Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America (University of California Press, 1994)
• Marjorie B. Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (Routledge, 1997)
• Albert Goldman, Elvis (McGraw-Hill, 1981)
• Albert Goldman, Elvis: The Last 24 Hours (Pan Books, 1991)
• Earl Greenwood (with Kathleen Tracy), The Boy Who Would Be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by His Cousin (Dutton, 1990)
• Peter Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley (Little, Brown, 1994)
• Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (Little, Brown, 1999)
• Boze Hadleigh, Conversations With My Elders (GMP, 1989)
• Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004)
• C. Lee Harrington and Denise D. Bielby, Popular Culture: Production and Consumption (Blackwell Publioshers, 2000)
• Jennifer Harrison, Elvis As We Knew Him: Our Shared Life in a Small Town in South Memphis (Universe, 2003)
• Jerry Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii (Bess Press, 2002)
• Patrick Humphries, Elvis The #1 Hits: The Secret History of the Classics (Ebury, 2002)
• Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream (McFarland, 1999)
• Gavin Lambert, Natalie Wood: A Life (Faber, 2004)
• Lisa A. Lewis, The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (Routledge, 1992)
• Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, eds., Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996)
• Peggy Lipton, Breathing Out (St. Martin's Press, 2005)
• Tom Lisanti, Fantasy Femmes of 60's Cinema: Interviews with 20 Actresses from Biker, Beach, and Elvis Movies (McFarland, 2000)
• Tom Lisanti, Drive-In Dream Girls: A Galaxy of B-Movie Starlets of the Sixties (McFarland, 2003)
• David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
• Kate McGowan, Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, Volume 5 (2002)
• Greil Marcus, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternative (Faber, 2000)
• Gerald Marzorati, "Heartbreak Hotel", The New York Times, January 3, 1999
• James Miller, Flowers in the Dustbin: The Rise of Rock and Roll, 1947-1977 (Simon and Schuster, 1999)
• Scotty Moore, That’s Alright, Elvis: The Untold Story of Elvis’s First Guitarist and Manager, Scotty Moore (Schirmer, 1998)
• N. Allan Moseley, Thinking Against the Grain: Developing a Biblical Worldview in a Culture of Myths (Kregel Publications, 2003)
• Alanna Nash (with Marty Lacker, Lamar Fike, and Billy Smith), Elvis Aron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (Harpercollins, 1995)
• Alanna Nash, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (Simon and Schuster, 2003)
• Annalee Newitz, White Trash: Race and Class in America (Routledge, 1997)
• Priscilla Presley, Elvis and Me (Century, 1985)
• Byron Raphael with Alanna Nash, "In Bed with Elvis," Playboy, November 2005, Vol. 52, Iss. 11
• Gilbert B. Rodman, Elvis After Elvis: the posthumous career of a living legend (Routledge 1996)
• Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (Branden Publishing Company, 1989)
• Robert A. Segal, Theorizing About Myth (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999)
• Robert Segal, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell, 2000)
• Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (Routledge, 1999)
• Ruthe Stein, "Girls! Girls! Girls! From small-town women to movie stars, Elvis loved often but never true," San Francisco Chronicle, August 3, 1997.
• Harry Stecopoulos and Michael Uebel, Race and the Subject of Masculinities (Duke University Press, 1997)
• Carol Tator, Winston Matthis, Frances Henry, Challenging Racism in the Arts (University of Toronto Press, 1998)
• Donald Theall, The Virtual Marshall McLuhan (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001)
• Time Out at Las Vegas (2005)
• Cameron Tuttle, The Bad Girls' Guide to Open Road (Chronicle Books, 1999)
• Leo Verswijver, Movies Were Always Magical: Interviews with 19 Actors, Directors, and Producers from the Hollywood of the 1930s through the 1950s (McFarland, 2002)
• David S. Wall, “Policing Elvis: legal action and the shaping of post-mortem celebrity culture as contested space”, Entertainment Law, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004
• Robert Walser, "The rock and roll era", in The Cambridge History of American Music (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
• Lana Wood, Natalie – A Memoir by Her Sister (Columbus Books, 1984)
• Bonnie Zimmerman, ed., Lesbian Histories and Cultures. An Encyclopedia (Garland, 2000)
• and others Onefortyone 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is assumed that from time to time significant points of view may represent contrasting bias. Fred Bauder 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Straight from WP:NPOV. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Easy to say Fred Bauder 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - From WP:NPOV Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sounds right to me. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to focus in many edits on Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in girls [13].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The word "alleged" or "asserted" should be inserted before "attraction to males" and again before "lack of interest," and "girls" changed to "women" or "females" (as below). Newyorkbrad 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.5) Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Lochdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) frequently reverts references to Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in females [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, a couple of "alleged"s or "asserted"s would go a long way here, unless ArbCom is going to make its own findings about Mr. Presley's personal life. Additionally, if the nub of the finding is that the user removes well-sourced statements of this nature, that should be explicitly stated, as otherwise removal of unsupported allegations otherwise could often be appropriate. Newyorkbrad 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material Lochdale removed was indeed well-sourced and supported by direct quotes from mainstream biographies. See, for instance, [15], [16], [17]. Onefortyone 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Lochdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley [18], Talk:Elvis_Presley#Cleanup_of_.22The_Elvis_Cult_and_its_Critics.22

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The Boy Who Would Be King reviews, Last Train to Memphis reviews, Careless Love reviews.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Lochdale shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, removing an alternative point of view with the comments "Removed POV" [19], "Most Presley experts do not agree, again POV" [20], "Removing POV again" [21], "Removed POV" [22], "Removed POV" [23], "Removed selective and POV quotation" [24], and "Removed selective and POV quotes - again." [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Lochdale is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern celebrities. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

(Presuming that I can post here)Seems rather broad but then I don't think I have ever actually edited any other celebrity biography. That said, my concern is that these sources seem to be taken at face value. Put another way, quotes may be taken out of context or undue weight may be given to one source over the other. Worse still, reputable sources can be use to buttress questionable sources. For example, using Guralnik to note that Presley was friendly with Nick Adams but never noting that Guralnik never suggests that they were anything other than friends or that Guralnik mentions other friends in Presley's life as well. All sources, like all evidence, should not be considerd equal and good evidence should never be allowed to support or buttress bad evidence. And no, I'm not much of a fan but that's not important I do think, however, that its important to note that I have no connection with Ted Wilkes et al. Given the ridiculous lengths that Wilkes went to post and disrupt I'd rather not be tarred by the same brush. And unlike Wilkes, I don't claim to be an attorney I actually am (thus the 'evidence' analogy). Lochdale 05:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Onefortyone has a viewpoint, however he also consults sources and uses them. The trouble before was jumping to conclusions which were not really set forth in the sources he was using. He has considerably moderated his behavior. He sets forth legitimate points of view. Often the way they are expressed or their volume could be improved, but repeated removal of the point of view violates a basic policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add further, I'm a little concerned that the issues with the article perhaps are being dismissed based on the notion that I am a "fan". To be sure there has been problems with a user who cause significant hardship to several editors and users but I hope that won't deflect from the real issues with the article. User Onefortyone has had run-ins like this with a number of other editors and his own mentor even had enough. This isn't an isolated incident and I don't think it is something that will go away. If I breeched Wiki policy then I should be banned. I am, at best, a middling editor but that should not deflect from the very real and very pernicious agenda of Onefortyone. Lochdale 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, Lochdale's edits clearly show that he must be an Elvis fan. He is primarily interested in the singer's number one hits (see [26]), in Elvis as the "biggest selling solo artist in US history" (see [27]) and "Elvis as the highest selling performer of all time" (see [28]). He visited Graceland with his father (see [29]) and says about Elvis, "There really wasn't anyone like him, black or white, who fused various strands of music together with such force. Further, he was unique in how he moved on stage and his entire act." See [30]. He added primarily fan-related material of this kind to the article:

• "Extraordinarily, Presley was able to present Nixon a gift of a Colt .45 handgun in the oval office." (see [31])
• "Graceland was closed to the public in June of 2006 so that Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a longtime Elvis fan, could visit the property with President Bush." See [32]. See also [33], [34], [35].

What is more, Lochdale repeatedly added false information to the Elvis Presley article, for instance, concerning the singer's friend, Nick Adams (see [36], [37], [38]), his stepmother, Dee Presley (see [39]), and the FBI files on Presley (see [40]) and he frequently removed contributions that were not in line with his personal view. Onefortyone 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for implying that you are a "fan". But that was just a response to Thatcher131, hazarding a inappropriate guess as to your motivation. I have no way of telling if you are Wilkes or Wyss. Certainly the drama is much less. Onefortyone is on probation for good reason and ought to remain so. If there was realistic hope that you would change your behavior I would not propose a ban, just propose a warning and expect you to edit appropriately. However, you have a history of completely removing the offending points of view, not just trying to improve their expression. Fred Bauder 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right with regard to this particular article and this particular user. Unfortunately, many of the edits were so fundamentally flawed (in my opinion and others) that rephrasing them would not have work as all that would have done would be to give credence to the initial, flawed, edit. I've stopped editing the article because I wanted to go through the arbitration process. The reality is, Onefortyone is on probabtion for abuse of Wiki rules. That he has gotten cleverer with his editing does not change the fact that he is a single agenda driven editor. I think the article (and other users' peace of mind) would improve exponentially if he were also banned from the article (particularly seeing as the Presley article seems to be is Wiki 'raison d'etre'. I would note that Onefortyone has had numerous problems with this article and with other users. It's a recurring and continuing problem such that his own mentor and another editor lost patience with him. Sadly, as I noted above, it won't go away with or without me. As for the Wilkes thing, well I'm in Martindale if that helps! Lochdale 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lochdale calls my edits "fundamentally flawed", although the material I have contributed is backed up by direct quotes from many independent sources, among them mainstream biographies and university studies. Onefortyone 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I take it you think Lochdale is the greater offender in this case? Thatcher131 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid he's a fan. Fred Bauder 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without at all endorsing the editing pattern under review, this remedy seems a bit overbroad based on problems with just one article, and as far as reflected in the proposed findings above, based mainly on one issue within one article. If retained, the section title should be changed; "banned" without more implies banned from the entire project. Newyorkbrad 12:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fred Bauder 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are not "based mainly on one issue within one article". Lochdale repeatedly removed well-sourced paragraphs concerning different topics from the Elvis article:

• the singer and his mother (see [41], [42], [43])
• the singer's relationships with women (see [44], [45], [46])
• his male friendships (see [47], [48], [49])
• the Elvis cult and its critics (see [50], [51])
• the FBI files on Presley (see [52], [53]).

It should also be noted that Lochdale's first Wikipedia contributions were attacks against me. See his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an easy target, being on probation. Main thing is, he removed blocks of material, parts of which were certainly useable. You do get carried away though. Why not try some other articles. Elvis seems boring to me. Fred Bauder 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see it as the issue being your edits and the article being one article. My removal of the section "The Elvis Cult and its Critics" was a mistake on my part as I should have followed the appropriate protocol. That said, the piece is so riddled with marginal research, POV and a conpiratorial edge that it just seemed to be a direct strike against the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. If you compare the Presley article to similar subjects such as John Lennon its deficiencies become all the more clear. Another reason why I wanted this to go to arbitration. That said, I do admit to not following reasonable procedures. Lochdale 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I am looking for is being willing to consider how the stuff he comes up with ought to fit into a good article, one that is not fancruft, but looks at the man as he was, and he was quite a spectacle. However, I think it is very hard to separate the phony stuff from true inside stuff. Good information has to come from people who knew him well and spent time with him; not from outsiders trying to sensationalize. Fred Bauder 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can work with other editors as I have in the past. For example, I've never edited anything regarding Presley's death or clear heavy drug use (other than one edit to question if drug paraphenelia was removed from around the corpose) becuase it is well documented by good sources such as Guralnik. If we look at the better sources like Guralnik (which is considered the preeminent Presley biography) we can see that most of the article isn't supported by quality works such as Guralnik's exhaustive volumes. Onefortyone doesn't (and hasn't) followed this attention to better sources. For example, blowing up an alleged minor blackmail issue that was covered less than 1% of the FBI Files on Presley and was barely mentioned by Guarlnik strikes me as an agenda driven addition. Not only does he blow it up but he then suggests that the alleged blackmailer made [passes] at Presley despite the fact that the FBI Files never actually say that (they say that the alleged blackmailer may have made passes at Presley's friends). A minor point to be sure but it goes to the fact that he just constantly pushes his agenda and pushes the envelope or just outright misstates facts to do so. To answer your point, are dissertations and obscure articles on the "zeitgest" of Presly vis-a-vis whatever really appropriate in an Encyclopedia? Again, when compared to other bios it just doesn't make sense. As I noted, I think a mutual ban would benefit everyone. Lochdale 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence shows that you are not able to work with other editors. You have frequently removed well-sourced content from the Elvis article simply because it was not in line with your personal view. The talk page also shows that you did not seriously discuss the content of the sources I have used. In this thread another user was of the opinion that the "Elvis cult" section includes "a lot of great information", but needs some rewording. You said, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc. which seems to be a little too specific for an encyclopedia entry." You even called the entire section a "mess". These statements speak volumes. See also this discussion with another user and this thread which both show that you were not willing to discuss, step by step and sentence by sentence, the content of my well-sourced contributions. As far as the extortion attempt is concerned, some sources indeed suggest that the blackmailer made homosexual passes both at the singer and his friends. For instance, an article on the FBI files in The Independent (Dec. 13, 2005) says, "When Griessel-Landau arrived, he made homosexual advances to Presley's friends and possibly to Presley himself." According to Guralnick, Griessel-Landau, while treating Elvis for acne, made a homosexual pass at him (quoted on this website). The FBI file of February 3, 1960 says that Presley himself had reported that the blackmailer "made several homosexual advances to some of his enlisted friends" and that Griessel-Landau "is alleged to have admitted to Presley that he is bisexual." The reader may draw his own conclusions. Onefortyone 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This incident merits a fraction of the FBI files. Guralnik did not think it important and did you ever consider that Fensch's description of this "major extortion" attempt (that netted Landau a couple of thousand dollars) was merely an effort to hype a book about an otherwise a very boring subject(the files are mundane). Again though, you bring it up as a major issue because it suits your agenda. A sentence by sentence discussion on your submissions is next to impossible given the sheer volume of quotes and footnotes you add to them. An Editor, Hoary, noted this as did your own mentor who was clear in his comments to you. Again, comparing this article to other celeb bios really is illuminating. Lochdale 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noted that we should link to the files and let readers decide for themselves. The files clearly note that Landu made passes at Presley's friends, not Presley. Not that it is really that relevant. The true issue here is your blowing what amounts to less than 1% of the actual files to being a major issue simply to push your agenda. Lochdale 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lochdale, the files clearly note that Presley said that the blackmailer made homosexual passes at the singer's friends, they didn't note that there were no passes at Presley. However, they note that Griessel-Landau "is alleged to have admitted to Presley that he is bisexual." Other authors draw the conclusion that there were also passes at the singer. As for the relevance of the case, there are more than a dozen pages in the FBI files concerning the case. Thomas Fensch, the author of a book on the FBI files, calls the case a "major extortion attempt." Onefortyone 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the arbitration committee and their proposition, I find this remedy a bit strong for the behaviours indicated by the evidence. If there is further evidence not presented here then it should be presented to be considered, but as it stands, this is nothing an article block of suitable length could not effectively remedy. In the case he does move on to other articles, then he could be brought for more severe punishment, but as is now, I do not see the need. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning of his appearance, Lochdale frequently attacked me for my edits and frequently removed my contributions. This seems to have been his primary aim. See [54]. He is still disparaging my contributions, as he has written above that the well-sourced section on the "Elvis cult and its critics", which was supported by other users, is "so riddled with marginal research, POV and a conpiratorial edge that it just seemed to be a direct strike against the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole." Sorry, to my mind, this user shows no understanding, and it is to be feared that he will continue his deleting tactics. Onefortyone 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of what it means I think it's evident, however, that you continue to push your own agenda onto the article(and pretty much this is all that you do on Wikipedia). This is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of your probation. As I noted, I would not contest a block and/or a ban but I certainly think it should be mutual. The section you refered to you basically created by cobbling together various sources (with the only requirement being that you can glean whatever you can from them to support your agenda). Given your history it would require a detailed analysis of each source to see just how much you have coopted the text to suit your agenda. As I said, I think a mutual ban/block is justified. Lochdale 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly claiming the same things, Lochdale. You have not yet cited a single reliable source which contradicts my contributions which are supported by dozens of independent sources. Instead, you repeatedly added false information both to the article and talk pages, as I have shown elsewhere. See [55]. Significantly, Lochdale thinks that "a mutual ban/block is justified." As this user didn't contribute substantial material to the article and only deleted entire paragraphs he doesn't like (saying, "just because I have not added any 'orginal material' to the article is meaningless. ... I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley ..."; see [56]), a mutual ban certainly would be in his interest. In my opinion, Lochdale should be indefinitely banned from the Elvis page and related articles, as he is the disruptive force. Be that as it may, the arbitrators may draw their own conclusions. Onefortyone 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's next to impossible to refute ever edit you make as you use the shotgun theory of research. You throw anything and everything up from every source imaginable and then say "prove me wrong". It's interesting though, detailed biographers like Guralnik seemed to have missed all of the "important" details you seem to be able to ferret out of each and every source. Not exactly what an encycolpedia should be used for. I believe the fact that you have had consistent and continous fights with multiple editors, the fact that you have been banned from the page before, the fact that you singularly obsess with this and that you have even turned your own mentor off should allow the arbitrators to conclude that you are the disruptive source. Lochdale 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, Lochdale, as my contributions show, I have frequently quoted from Guralnick's two books, several other mainstream biographies on Elvis, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. I have not yet seen a single quote you have given from one of the major sources. You have only deleted my contributions. That's the difference between us two. Onefortyone 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You selectively quote from Guralnik, big difference. Guralnik's book does not support your contentions. Guralnik never suggested Presley and Adams were anything other than friends. Guralnik spends a fraction of the book on Landau. Guralnik never suggests Presley had an incestous relationship with his mother etc. etc. Of course you know this which is why you have to selectively quote. The difference between you and I is that I don't have an agenda driven by a personal obsession. Lochdale 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal being voted on is just a ban from one page. Fred Bauder 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to say that there is a difference between a ban and a block. I feel a ban is a bit too strong for the editing given in the evidence, but as always I defer to your judgment. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief there is no connection. A check user and other evidence confirmed that. Even if there was, it doesn't change the fact that you have an agenda. It shouldn't deflect from the fact that you have used the Presley article as a means to push your own agenda. As I keep going back to, if an author like Guralnik fails to mention or even refernce any suggestion that Presley was bisexual, gay or whatever maybe it's a sign you should not be using clever editing techniques to create inferences that suit your agenda. It cheapens Wikipedia. Lochdale 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The current version of the article doesn't mention that there were rumors that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. Significantly, such claims are a red rag to you, as they were to Ted Wilkes and Wyss. See [57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81]. This may be no coincidence. Onefortyone 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. In part, this trouble is caused by your obsession, not by the usual reaction to it. Fred Bauder 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is solely due to the considerable and painstaking edit wars that share one common denomenator: You. Indeed, it was another battle royale to get you to remove claims that Presley had an incestous relationship with his mother. Further, given your extensive work on the Nick Adams page you are still clearly trying to create the inference of a homosexual relationship. Who knows, maybe they were lovers but reputable authors such as Guralnik have failed to mention or even notice it so it is up to you via an online encyclopedia to create the inference? You should write Guralnik et al. and critique their sloppy research. Lochdale 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lochdale is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern celebrities. Lochdale has made some mistakes. Censure those mistakes, censure him, stick him on probation, even ban him for a month or so if you're that worked up about it. Beats me why anyone would want to edit WP articles that concern celebrities; but Lochdale does want to, and, some excesses aside, he does so conscientiously. He seems to have as his goal the production of what could pass for encyclopedia articles, as opposed to mere chrestomathies of (sourced!) tittle-tattle. Banning him indefinitely would be draconian and grotesque. Unless of course you're keen to remove any obstacle to the production of collections of titillating factoids. -- Hoary 14:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Lochdale "conscientiously" edited WP articles that concern celebrities and that "He seems to have as his goal the production of what could pass for encyclopedia articles..." As far as I can see, Lochdale didn't contribute substantial material to the Elvis article. Here are some of his "major" contributions: [82], [83], [84], [85]). He himself stated, "just because I have not added any 'orginal material' to the article is meaningless. ... I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley ..." See [86]. His primary aim was to remove entire paragraphs he didn't like and to disparage peer-reviewed studies which were not in line with his personal view. See [87], [88]. Onefortyone 23:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: