Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone

The complete request for arbitration:

Involved parties

 * Ted Wilkes ("party 1")
 * Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al ("party 2")


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

here on their Talk page.
 * User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes- is the initiating party and has notifed User:Onefortyone


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless


 * I objected to Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al edits and tactics more than three months ago and he filed a Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes (80.141.225.96 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) but it did not gain the necessary endorsement within two days and was deleted. Precise and documented rebuttals of edits by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al and exposure of his fabrications have been done but they are simply ignored and he aggressively continues his propaganda campaign.

Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Summary:
 * First, I apologize to members of the Arbitration Committee for the exceptional length of this submission but the matter is of such an egregious nature that there is no other choice. The issue at hand is not about a difference of opinion. User: Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al is an abuser of Wikipedia who takes advantage of the goodwill of others and is an unrelenting disruptive force that has rebuffed all attempts to correct his fabricated and non-encyclopedic edits by reverting others hundreds of times. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al has edited with one theme in the articles for David Bret, Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert, Memphis Mafia and Elvis Presley and on September 3rd went back to James Dean, making six edits that created a section he titled "Rumors about Dean's homosexual leanings." This was followed by an edit war. All of the edits to these articles have been orchestrated through referencing and targeted linking to Nick Adams in support of a gossip book by David Bret that insinuated Presley was gay. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al does not care that he fabricates information and writes exclusively POV, it is an deliberate campaign to insert his Presley/Adams/Bret connection on as many articles and Talk pages as possible that will then be reflected by the many Wikipedia mirrors on the Internet as well as show up on Google searches. Note that Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al leaves long messages on other Wikipedians talk page so that they will show up on Google such as User:Ed Poor's page as seen here that shows:

'''User talk:Ed Poor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor - 101k - 11 Sep 2005 - Cached - Similar pages'''

Note too that when the Presley and Adams articles were page protected, it meant little as Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al then massively used the Talk page(s) which also show up on Google. In this regard, see what User:Wyss said on Talk:Natalie Wood: 
 * Here, the anon uses the standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material which has little or no bearing on this short article. His ultimate goal by the way is to support an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC) Wyss
 * The anon is trying to place as many instances of the terms homosexual and gay as possible into these four articles, I speculate in order to trigger misleading keyword search results in Google, which is significantly influenced by Wikipedia and its mirrors. Wyss21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * adroitly following the cultural mores of Wikipedia, all the while working to subvert it in order to trigger some misleading keyword searches on Google related to Elvis Presley. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives knowledgeable and scholastically rigorous editors away from WP. Wyss 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

See what User:Func said here about Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al:
 * Yeah, I've just done some edit history searching. The anon is a POV warrior of the first degree, and does not appear to be editing in good faith. func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

When I and others took the time to examine the edits by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al in detail and to document their fabrications and distortions, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al simply reworded them slightly and immediately or a few days later begin reinserting them. Their exact same distortions that began with intense edit wars five months ago were still being posted at Wikipedia by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al over and over and even in his new article created on September 4th: [rumors about Elvis Presley].

Note that User: Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al's constant reinsertions of fabrications and distortions reap rewards because virtually no one reads all the past history on all the various Talk pages. As an example of how well it works, look at the Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley where a sincere Wikipedia contributor votes to keep this article saying: "keep, seems well sourced". And, then another voter arrives at the same conclusion saying: "as noted above this does appear to be well-sourced." Then, seeing that the voting is going against him, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al fills the bottom of the page with massive text claiming new information that Elivis was gay. He does this knowing that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page will be kept as an archive. As at 20:37, 14 September 2005 we now have a new article Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality with a repeat of all the same fabrications and distortions.

As suggested by User:Wyss on several occasions, I too believe that '''Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al is a sockpuppet used exclusively by another Wikipedia contributor for these slected articles. As such, simultaneous to this Request for Arbitration I have formally requested David Gerard to access CheckUser in order to check this possibility.


 * Re-statement by party 1

Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al began this campaign by deliberately inserting complete fabrications then after being caught, used distortions. Prior to my falling into this matter, this user had already bullied other parties into giving up through their constant reverting and verbal diatribes as seen here on the Elvis Presley talk pages. A frequent tactic of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al is to insert a fabrication and/or distortion, then breach Writers' rules of engagement : Don't filibuster by reverting over and over (20-30-40 times) anyone who tries to remove his fabrications, and overwhelm the article talk page and demand THEY prove him wrong. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al constantly disrupts Wikipedia (Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ).

Part of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.'s tactics is to leave messages on the talk pages of others, usually a Administrator, in order to gain their support as seen here at User talk:Mel Etitis in (Sections titled: "Violating Wikipedia rules" and "New paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry" AND here at User talk:Ed Poor in the Section titled: "James Dean, Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley" AND here at User talk:DropDeadGorgias in the Section titled: "User Wyss and the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood"  AND here at User talk:Willmcw in the Section titled: "User Wyss and the article on Nick Adams"

At User talk:Ed Poor, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al intimates that I am anti-gay telling Ed Poor that: "Ted Wilkes do not like the idea that some Hollywood stars may have had homosexual leanings. I do not understand what should be wrong with this fact."

From Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1 Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al states:
 * "As everybody now can see, this user calls me a liar for placing some information taken out of books on Elvis in the article. He may indeed be a member of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King and therefore tries to suppress all other information which is not in line with this media monopoly." User: 80.141.178.108

AND LATER on the page Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al says:
 * "'To my mind, it is to be supposed that Ted Wilkes may be one of those people writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of Elvis, as has been pointed out by Professor Dr David S. Wall (see [44] and [45]), and therefore tries to suppress the opinion that Elvis may have been bisexual or gay. This would explain why he is constantly deleting my contributions. Onefortyone 10:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)''."

Note that ANON 80.141 almost always never signed his edits until Administrator User:JCarriker and other Admins demanded he do so. And, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al games the system through an unsigned edit that makes it appear as though another editor is asking a question in support of his writing. Despite repeated warnings about signing his edits, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al still does this, as see here just a few days ago, again to create a false impression and then on September 9 here,

This tactic, and the innuendo and misleading statements posted to other Users pages gets a reaction, only because they can't read several hundred paragraphs in 4-5 articles to discern reality. It is the last bit that gets read, that’s how ANON/Onefortyone keeps it going. One of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al's tactics is to post on the article Talk page or on another User's Talk page saying: "As everybody can see, I frequently cite my sources". The problem is, the Article’s text has been first been distorted from what the source says and the sources are either or all meaningless, unrelated, and not credible.

SOCK PUPPET accusations as a diversionary tactic:
 * Previously Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al told User:Ed Poor and User:Mel Etitis that User:Wyss was my Sock puppet as seen here: Why are you here?. Unbelievably, both Wikipedia Administrators then made that unfounded accusation against User:Wyss.


 * In September, Onefortyone stated to User:KeithD here that he was an "unbiased Wikipedia user" and asked that KeithD look at the paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry. KeithD replied here. But, because Onefortyone didn't like the answer, he began attacking KeithD, accusing him of being a sockpuppet of User:Wyss, forcing  KeithD to go on the defensive here

Fabrications by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al (a few examples out of many):
 * Having referred to supposed text from the David Bret book on Elvis Presley, on April 4, 2005 as Anonymous User: 80.141.253.77 began modifying the David Bret article and by April 26 had inserted unfounded statements and outright fabrications and doctored the article by removing considerable of the negative facts and inserting complete fabrications. As can be seen here, he inserts that David Bret is one of "Britain's leading biographers".

Note after many, many reverts and massive arguments as seen on Talk:David Bret, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al does what he always does when caught fabricating statements in the article -- he removes his deception "leading biographer" as seen here while leaving anything else he believes he can get away with.

Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 writes in the David Bret article "Elvis and his boyfriend" here. A total fabrication, here is what the article actually says.


 * Here are more fabrications and obscene language.


 * On Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1  Completely fabricated quote from Elvis and Me autobiography by Priscilla Presley inserted by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al that says:
 * "In her autobiography, Priscilla Presley herself said that although Elvis would spend hours alone with her in her bedroom he never made any advances toward her. This statement is totally contradictory to your claim that Elvis was 100% heterosexual and a womanizer." - User:80.141.197.110

Regarding Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al and his inserting fabrications in his edit wars with others see what User:Wyss said here about how it forced her to do endless research to disprove the fabrications. This same thing happened to me (Ted Wilkes) and in the last week to User:KeithD

See Talk:Elvis Presley/archive3 - ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE where Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al wrote:
 * Decades after his death, author David Bret, In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), stated that Presley was gay. Bret said Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him."

Note that repeated insertions by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 of fabrications have been, like this one, always asserted as factual. But, Here is what suddenly was declared by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al as a "new" direct quote from "The blurb. "
 * "In addition, the blurb clearly says that the author "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." – Onefortyone/ANON 80.141

Following this, at Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al comes up with a third version: this

Regardless of fabrications by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al, David Bret and his gossip book on Presley does not meet the level of Wikipedia requirements for academic/journalistic integrity as confirmed by User:DropDeadGorgias here. As well, a Wikipedia policy consensus has already been established on Talk:Abraham Lincoln for dealing with similar such issues as Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. For the David Bret writings about Presley that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 wants included in Wikipedia, if he or any other Wiki contributor produces David Bret's academic credentials, the specific information on exactly what his book alludes to, proper peer reviews for the book, and then can show that this matter has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major publications such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, then they can place a similar reference in the Presley article and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

Because I had pointed this out, see how Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al now has created another distortion by inserting "Time magazine" as a reference into the current (now archived by me)Talk:Elvis Presley page.

Note in the Talk:Nick Adams page here that User:Onefortyone himself refers to David Bret and the like as "gossip book authors" stating in his edit of 19:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC):
 * The only source not written by gossip book authors is the article by Professor Dr Wall, but he has not written about Nick Adams's sexual preferences.

The agenda of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al never ends. Even after the Wikipedia community voted to delete his Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley article, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al continued to mislead everyone at Talk:Elvis Presley (now archived by me) with repeated Section headers declaring Presley as homosexual plus more distortions and more and repeated unsubstantiated references in order to keep his campaign for David Bret book sales alive on Google searches. Of course, he adds his repeated accusation that User:Wyss and I are part of a worldwide conspiracy to discredit his edits. On September 14th Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al went back to the Presley Talk page and added massive amounts more disinformation as seen [here]. Note that he suddenly comes up with a new book source to make another statement but as usual it has no detail or page reference. His book must be one of the one’s that the Worldwide Conspirators missed.

Because User: Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 repeatedly makes references to certain people to declare Elvis Presley was gay, I have listed these in a supplement with details: Requests for arbitration/ Onefortyone/ANON 80.141.et al/ Supplement

Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Notice. Ted Wilkes has totally deleted my comment from the Requests for arbitration/ Onefortyone/ANON 80.141.et al/ Supplement page. See and. I do not think that this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. For Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics, see also and

The problem is that there is an edit war going on and User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are deeply involved in this war. As everybody can see from the related discussion pages, they are constantly accusing me of vandalism, fabrications, distortions, being a liar, etc., denigrating the sources (books, reviews, articles, webpages) I have used to support my contributions. As I have added many links to my contributions, every reader can see that the sources I have used exist and are reliable enough for Wikipedia contributions. Wyss and Ted Wilkes don't like the fact that some authors say that some Hollywood stars such as Elvis Presley and his friend, actor Nick Adams were gay or had homosexual leanings. That's a real problem. I am frequently citing several independent sources. On the other hand, users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are unable to cite sources which prove that the claims in the sources I have provided are wrong. I have now detected some additional sources supporting my view, but Ted Wilkes and Wyss continue to denigrate these sources. Wyss even deleted my summary of the facts on the Talk:Elvis Presley page which is not in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. See. For further passages removed by Wyss, see, and. As administrator User:DropDeadGorgias has suggested, I have created a new Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page summarizing the claims in order to exclude this material from the main talk page. That's all. And I am surprized that there is now a "third party" statement by Wyss below, although this user is deeply involved in the edit war. Onefortyone 22:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary statement by interested third party
I would strongly resist the temptation to characterise this as an "edit war" or a "squabble." While superficially it may seem to be, this is not at all a debate between PoVs. If EP had been gay (or if there was any evidence for it) I'd have zero problem with it being mentioned in an encyclopedic way in the article. WP has lots of helpful articles about all sorts of people. I stumbled onto this by clicking a link to Nick Adams when I was editing Picnic (movie). I endorse User:Ted Wilkes' account even if he can be abrasive and unilateral when he gets excited about something, and his tactics do sometimes inflame even more but IMHO User:Ted Wilkes has made many wonderful, thoroughly researched contributions to this encyclopedia. His behavior is "good faith" and doesn't even compare to 141's (please look at their respective contrib histories, the contrast is stark as can be). I am convinced 141 is attempting to seed Elvis Presley and Nick Adams with the words homosexual and gay as often as syntactically possible in order to skew keyword searches by Google to books by author David Bret. Thanks to WP's mirrors and their slower update cycles, 141 has largely succeeded so far. The sources he has offered are uniformly unsupportable or fabricated. Those which exist were written exclusively for the tabloid market and have no historical basis in the documented record. 141 doesn't seem to accept that, in order to show a source as unreliable or unencyclopedic, it is not necessary to produce a "counter-source" which "proves the negative," it is only necessary to show a source has either been widely discredited or is not a reliable secondary source founded on citations from real primary documentation. I have tried to explain this to him many times, likewise why his persistant use of the phrase "independent source" has little sway with regard to reliable and encyclopedic citations. Wyss 22:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 141's allegation that I've deleted material from the talk page may be misleading since he has repeatedly re-pasted a couple of novels' worth of material onto that page, all of which has been roundly discredited and is thoroughly preserved in the talk archives. IMO what he wants is for newly arrived editors to see the same old material without the discrediting discussions attached, hence he complains when a third or fourth copy of it is removed. Wyss 15:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been involved, sometimes peripherally and sometimes more centrally, with this little brush war, and have felt from the beginning that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. Ted Wilkes' approach and manner are at least as bad as 141's; one is determined to add material about homosexuality, the other is determined to exclude it, and both of them act as though this is all that matters &mdash; the quality of Wikipedia and the articles involved come a poor second.  Both have violated Wikipedia policy, and both have had to be blocked for doing so.  Ted Wilkes' idiosyncratic but unshakeable interpretations of Wikipedia terms such as "vandalism", giving citations, etc., are well known to many, and this is another example. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does have a way of attracting obsessive-compulsive monomaniacal types, doesn't it? Perhaps people with more balanced, reasonable personalities are less interested in spending time writing and editing stuff for no pay. *Dan T.* 17:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Another third party statement
I would also like to add evidence of how Onefortyone twists facts. On several occasions, he has supplied the names of books or authors to supposedly support his claim. One of these texts was searchable in amazon, and I found that there was no mention of what he claimed there was. I believe he just selected a book on Elvis at random, and claimed it had factual support for his position. . Onefortyone is the worst kind of malicious editor, and should be treated as such. Look at Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2 and search down from there for "Greil Marcus". His abuse of the trust of other editors and his willingness to bend facts to push his singular agenda are unbelievable in their scope. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For a reply, see . Onefortyone 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Note on protection status of the articles
I have unprotected Memphis Mafia because it seems to me unreasonable to protect a page from edits for more than a few days (this one had been protected for more than three weeks) simply because some of the editors cannot agree with one another. Several people have asked me to protect the page again but their reason seem to resolve to "someone involved in this proposed arbcom case may edit it". This doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to protect an article--of course editors are always making edits that other editors disagree with, it's a wiki. I am monitoring the unprotected article, I may unprotect some of the other articles in this case if it seems to me that they're simply being held because of this squabble. I will not object if another sysop protects it.

Editors must at all times act in a reasonable manner, and excessively disruptive edits may result in blocking, which is always preferable to preventing all edits on this wiki. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * Accept. I hope the evidence page will be considerably more terse than the comments have been, however. James F. (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept &#10149;the Epopt 11:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Further comment
A fair and sound judgement, thank you all! Sam Spade 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone

 * This was originally posted as a request for clarification on Requests for arbitration. It has been moved here to facilitate permanent record-keeping.


 * For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the arbcom results was placed on Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. He appears to have shifted to inserting such material into album/CD articles. Does this probation extend to such pages as well if they are inappropriately edited? - Mgm|(talk) 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting that a user, who didn't contribute to Presley-related topics in the past, has totally removed my well-sourced contributions from two different Wikipedia articles (see and ). This supports my suspicion that there are several sockpuppets at work who are harassing me and seem to be related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW. I have discussed this problem elsewhere. See, for instance,  . MacGyverMagic has falsely claimed on the Nicholas Turnbull talk page that my contributions are "unreferenced POV stuff" about Elvis. Truth be told, I have quoted from George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37, and from a university site. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This edit seems inappropriate. The only problem I see is that sometimes it is not clear what the source is of the material Onefortyone is inserting. Fred Bauder 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)