Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Wilkes requests arbitration against Fred Bauder. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, Fred Bauder votes to reject the request against himself. The next day, Redwolf24 requests that the arbitration case involving Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone be reopened to address what he believes is misbehaviour on the part of Wilkes and Wyss. Despite the obvious conflict of interest with Wilkes from the day prior, Fred Bauder votes to accept the case.

The point of "recuse" is so that an arbiter does not use their position on the committee to prevent valid criticism from being brought against them or from using their position as arbiter to punish those who are critical of their behaviour. Fred Bauder may be the most neutral and fair arbiter on the committee. But the point is that no matter whether the arbiter is the most fair and neutral arbiter, or whether the arbiter is the most abusive user of their power, when an obvious conflict of interest arises then "recuse" is the only legitimate answer.

If an arbiter is fair and neutral and sees an apparent conflict of interest, then they should realize that to have a fair hearing of the facts, then they should recuse themselves from the vote. If an arbiter is abusing their power in an apparent conflict of interest, then they would have incentive to vote to suppress criticism and vote to punish opponents. Regardless of how fair and neutral Fred Bauder may be, he needs to recuse himself from this case in its entirety.

20:07, 16 November 2005 Ted Wilkes files request for arbitration against Fred Bauder.

21:43, 16 November 2005 Fred Bauder votes to "reject" the request for arbitration against himself.

02:51, 17 November 2005 Redwolf24 requests the arbitration case involving Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone be reopened.

04:46, 17 November 2005 Fred Bauder votes to "accept" Redwolf24's request to arbitration against Wilkes.

Arbitration case against onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Finding of facts include that Onefortyone cited unreliable and at least once cited non-existent sources and that Onefortyone inserted original research on occaision.

Redwolf24 requested the case be reopened, stating that Wilkes and Wyss were going out of their way to harass Onefortyone. Onefortyone presented a number of diffs. The diffs that show behaviour that occurred after the arbitration case closed and the present are shown below (numbers represent dates in the month of November):

evidence of disputed behaviour presented by onefortyone: 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12 13

attempts to resove dispute presented by onefortyone: 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 16

The diffs of "evidence of disputed behaviour" show nothing but edits by Wilkes or Wyss removing what they thought to be disputed material.

On the 13th, Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13, and that appears to resolve the dispute.

On the 16th, Redwolf24 requests to reopen the arbcom case, saying the dispute is not resolved, and that editors are misbehaving.

Onefortyone cites a number of diffs by Wyss on the 17th where Wyss calls onefortyone a "vandal". I'm not sure how pedantic arbcom is, but given the finding of facts in the November 3 case against onefortyone, the label "vandal" does not seem so far off as to warrant any sort of punishment by arbcom against Wyss.

Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss have indeed been harrassing me for months, working together in removing my edits. At the moment, it is surprisingly calm at the "front", as User:Ted Wilkes is contributing to several other articles and is not, as usual, deleting my contributions, but I should not wonder if the edit war will continue in the near future, because there is much evidence that Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned User:JillandJack alias User:DW. This is of much importance and has not yet been considered by the arbitration committee. Both users have very similar editing interests and the same aggressive attitudes. Ted Wilkes frequently deletes contributions by others (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) and aggressively attacks users and even administrators and members of the arbitration committee if their opinions are not in line with his personal view, as DW did in the past. He repeatedly called me a vandal, a liar, etc. and falsely claimed that my edits are fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. For a summary of the facts, see [11]. What makes me so sure that Ted Wilkes is identical with User:JillandJack alias User:DW?

• On 7 November 2003, User:NightCrawler, another alias of DW and obviously an Elvis Presley fan like Ted Wilkes, deleted a passage relating to a claim by David Bret that Elvis may have been gay. See [12]. The same user added some denigrating remarks on Bret's book to the related discussion page, which were similar to those later written by Ted Wilkes. See [13].

In November 2003, NightCrawler was hardbanned. See [14]. But NightCrawler reappeared as User:JillandJack creating a new, denigrating article on biographer David Bret. See [15]. This biased article was rewritten by me on 4 April 2004. See [16]. In the meantime, JillandJack was hardbanned.

• On 20 April 2005, some different comment concerning author David Bret and his book was added. See [17]. This was repeatedly deleted by IP 66.61.69.65. See, for instance, [18], [19], [20]. Administrator DropDeadGorgias was forced to restore this comment. See [21].
• Since May 2005 there was an edit war between Ted Wilkes and me concerning the article on David Bret and particularly his book, Elvis: The Hollywood Years, presumably because of Bret's claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings - a claim Ted Wilkes didn't like from the beginning. See [22].

On 5 May, Ted Wilkes reinstated, without further commentary, the biased version by JillandJack thereby deleting a link to a positive Guardian review of a book written by Bret. See [23]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes repeatedly reverted the article to the version he preferred, i.e., exactly the version JillandJack had created, accusing me of distortions, fabrications, being a vandal, etc. See [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. etc. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See, for instance, [34].

• Further, both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack contributed to many articles on American singers and entertainers such as The Canadian Sweethearts (see [35]), Bill Dees (see [36]), Freddy Cannon (see [37]), Lefty Frizzell (see [38]), Louisiana Hayride (see [39]), Doug Kershaw (see [40]), Joe Melson (see [41]), Yvonne Printemps (see [42]), Tommy Roe (see [43]) and Bobby Vee (see [44]). They also contributed to very specific articles such as In Dreams (album), The Fastest Guitar Alive and Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits (see [45], [46] and [47]).
• Both Ted Wilkes and JillandJack seem to be interested in horse racing and contributed to the article, Horse of the Year (see [48]).

For much experience with the aggressive behavior of User:JillandJack alias User:DW, the arbitrators may ask User:Angela.

User:Wyss seems to remain calm at the moment. However, this user repeatedly deleted my contributions (see, for instance, [49], [50], [51]) and accused me of abusing Wikipedia pages, of being a vandal and a troll, etc.

After being informed by arbitrator Fred Bauder that Onefortyone is "not banned from editing celebrity articles" and that "automatically reverting his contributions on the basis that he is 'banned' is not justified," Wyss made absurd accusations, calling me a vandal and claiming that Fred Bauder "is only the latest in a long line of admins and bureaucrats to have been manipulated by him (he's a WP admin and knows how to spin the system). Anyway he has violated his arbcom probabation and is as disruptive as ever. He has wrought and continues to inflict true damage upon this encyclopdedia." See [52]

Wyss calls me a vandal who "reverts to his old tactic of hollow sockpuppet accusations." See [53]. (For the facts which prove that my accusations against Ted Wilkes are well supported, see above.)

Wyss calls me a vandal and says that he uses the term formally. See [54]

Wyss says that I am "a talented and knowledgeable vandal and hence immensely more destructive to WP's credibility." See [55]. See also [56]

Wyss accuses me of using the tactics of a vandal and those of a troll. See [57]

Wyss states that he/she agrees with Ted Wilkes "that a Wikipedia user who represents himself as a retired lawyer on his user page and serves on arbcom, but who has not disclosed that he was disbarred, may be abusing Wikipedia's well-established practice of assuming good faith on the part of all users." See [58]

Wyss denies having harrassed 141 and accuses Redwolf24 of harrassing Wyss. See [59]. For similar statements, including the claim that Redwolf24 had abused his admin status, see also [60], [61], [62]

Wyss falsely accuses me of abusing Wikipedia pages. See [63]

Wyss says on the User talk:Redwolf24 page that "my name ... in your RfAr concerning 141 ... is reprehensible, a form harrassment in direct violation of WP policy and an abuse of your admin status." See [64]

On the User talk:Wyss page, Wyss still accuses me of "using Nick Adams as a wedge from which to seed the Elvis Presley article with Google friendly keywords which would lead readers to tabloid books by a certain dodgy author." See [65]

Wyss continues to attack several members of the arbitration committee claiming that "arbcom's agenda is revenge against Ted Wilkes" and that "they're coddling a troll." Furthermore, arbitrator Kelly Martin is being accused of a "flip and sarcastic reply." See [66] and [67]

Finally, Wyss denigrates the whole Wikipedia project attacking its founder Jimbo Wales to be a mere marketer: "he more or less means for Wikipedia to be this way. Cranks, trolls and conflict marketed under the label "Internet Encyclopedia," all enabled by wiki software, happens to equal traffic and donations, an easy enough tale." See [68] and [69]

Ted Wilkes returns to his tactic of denigrating all sources which are not in line with his personal view and continues edit warring. See [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. See also James Dean and related talk page.

On this page User:FuelWagon declared that "On the 13th, Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13, and that appears to resolve the dispute." See above. Apparently, this is not the case as Ted Wilkes continues to throw mud on arbcom member Fred Bauder. He states that he and User:Wyss both complained that arbitrator Fred Bauder used intimation and threats to support edits by someone on Wikipedia:probation who he somehow declared to be "in good standing." Furthermore, Wilkes accuses Fred Bauder of misconduct and even claims that he was "declared a danger to the public." See [75]. Wyss also continues to attack several members of the arbitration committee and is still calling me a troll, simply because my contributions are not in line with his/her view. See above.

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.