Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone

message: ==== Involved parties====
*Ted Wilkes ("party 1")
*Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al ("party 2")
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
*User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes- is the initiating party and has notifed User:Onefortyone 
here on their Talk page.
; 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes (80.141.225.96 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For a reply, see . Onefortyone 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al 

message: *Ted Wilkes ("party 1")
*Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al ("party 2")
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
*User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes- is the initiating party and has notifed User:Onefortyone 
here on their Talk page.
; 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes (80.141.225.96 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involved parties

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by party 1 

message: Please limit your statement to 500 words
Notice. Ted Wilkes has totally deleted my comment from the Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Statement by party 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Supplementary statement by interested third party 

message: 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)
replies: text: For a reply, see . Onefortyone 00:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another third party statement

message: 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 SidawayTalk 22:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on protection status of the articles

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0) 

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

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Onefortyone