Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence

message: I'm largely unfamiliar with the Requests for arbitration process. I only stumbled across this issue late in the day (early September 2005, on the AfD for the Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley article). I've followed the issue since then, directly challenging the credibility of the sources on a number of occasions, put forward by User:Onefortyone to support his point of view that Elvis was gay.
The evidence submitted thus far seems to suggest that this is an edit war, and that sources are being denigrated because users are opponents of Onefortyone, or they're motivated Elvis fans (or as has been suggested on the Elvis talk page, that people object to mention of homosexuality out of prejudice).
None of these apply to me. My involvement has only come after the Elvis article was protected, and I've not actually edited it once, although I've made a number of posts to the talk page regarding this issue. I'm not an opponent of Onefortyone: he was the person who first asked me to look at the Elvis article, as an "unbiased editor" following my vote on the Gay sex rumors... article. (He did subsequently accuse me of being a sockpuppet of User:Wyss though). I'm not an Elvis fan, as I've said once or twice on the talk page. I've no objection to the article, or any article, mentioning homosexuality, if it comes from verifiable sources, as I've said. (I can, of course, cite diffs for all these if and when required).
By and large, my experience of this issue is similar to that of User:Ted Wilkes, and as such, I've avoided saying anything thus far on this request for arbitration, as it'd be little more than a "me too" post. However, now that people's motivations in calling such sources unverifiable are called into question, I'm wondering whether a "me too" post from someone who can strongly counter those claims is relevant.
As I say though, I'm largely unfamiliar with the request for arbitration process, and don't want to steam in with a load of information that could be seen as being just repeating what's been said before. Advice from anyone as to whether it would be relevant to formally submit evidence, or just to support this talk page post by finding and citing the relevant diffs, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. KeithD (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should I submit evidence?

message: I am not editing the RFA evidence page directly as I don't really want to be involved in this again.  I would just like to say for the record that there are several actions of mine that Onefortyone has taken out of context to imply that I somehow support his view, which is certainly not the case.  The first action he mentions is a restoration of a comment to a talk page (which I would do in the case of any deleted comment), and my second observation that Onefortyone's text was less POV was taken out of the context of a larger conversation.  It should not be interpreted that I in any way condone the actions of Onefortyone; I have stated my opinion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone#Another third party statement, which sums up my feelings on this matter. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note 

message: I'm not supplying evidence as it would be redundant to the exhaustive effort made by Ted Wilkes, along with that of KeithD, whose accounts I endorse. Onefortyone is a one-topic editor who has routinely, falsely (and rather menacingly) accused those who don't agree with him of being sockpuppets and has pasted truly vast quantities of repetitive text onto talk pages of the affected articles and those of a few admins. Wyss 19:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from Wyss