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 andbe 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/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644][1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, seetalk 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 evidencein 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.

The issue outlined here for consideration by theWikipedia:Arbitration Committee is in line withWikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption.

User:Onefortyone (Previously and still editing as Anon 80.141.245.248 and others under a Dynamic IP) repeatedly violatedWikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement : Don'tfilibuster andWikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point #Gaming the system. Using complete fabrications inserted into articles and declared as factual, Onefortyone et al edits with one mission the articles forDavid Bret,Nick Adams,Natalie Wood,Gavin Lambert,James Dean,Memphis Mafia, andElvis Presley.

Fundamental precepts for Wikipedia editing such asWikipedia:Reliable sources,Wikipedia:Check your facts,Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages, andWikipedia:Verifiability amongst others, are simply ignored by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al.

The unrelenting mission of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al has been going on for more than five months and has been done through referencing and targeted linking with massive numbers of reversions when his fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted edits are removed. However, because the Talk pages also come up inGoogle searches, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserted the Nick Adams and/or Elvis Presley names and the word "homosexual" hundreds of times which then gets repeated by others out of necessity when they try to refute his edits. See:Talk:David Bret,Talk:Nick Adams,Talk:Elvis Presley,Talk:Gavin Lambert,Talk:Natalie Wood,Talk:James Dean.

No matter how many times several editors have shown him to be wrong or proven that he has falsified his statements, or pointed outWikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, the agenda ofOnefortyone/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 atTalk:Elvis Presley/archive4 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 onGoogle searches.

Because the evidence of the conduct of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al is spread across several of the aforementioned articles, I will list them individually:

DAVID BRET article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• Having referred to supposed text from the David Bret book on Elvis Presley, onApril 4, 2005 as Anonymous User: 80.141.253.77 began modifying theDavid Bret article and by April 26 had inserted unfounded statements andoutright fabrications and doctored the article by removing considerable of the negative facts and insertingcomplete fabrications. As can be seenhere, he inserts that David Bret is one of "Britain's leading biographers".

Note after many, many reverts and massive arguments as seen onTalk: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 seenhere while leaving anything else in the article he believes he can get away with. ASnd, if someone challenges what is left, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al will start with fabrications all over again.

Beginning many months ago at Talk:Elvis Presley[2] Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al is emboiled in an edit war with others whom he will eventually drive away by overwhelming them with talk and fabricated information. On that Talk page he inserts thisdeliberate falsehood:

• "It is an undeniable fact that Elvis and Nick Adams were boyfriends."

In his edit of26 April 2005, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 writes in theDavid Bret article about Judy Spreckels stating: "Elvis and his boyfriend"here. Anothertotal fabrication,here is what the article actually says.

Note that months later, onAugust 13, 2005, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 is still quoting Judy Spreckels in theElvis Presley articlehere as a source that Presley was homosexual .

NICK ADAMS article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• As "Anon 80.141 et al," his first edits on June 1st as seenHere arefabrications andobscene language, labeling Natalie Wood a Lesbian actress and claiming Nick Adams was gay and that he had an affair with Elvis Presley. As seen on theEdit History, Anon 80.141 et al made fifty (50) edits to the article, the bulk of which are direct reversions or ones that insert a variation of the same thing. AsUser:Onefortyone, he made an additional eighteen (18) edits for a total of sixty seven.

The edits to the Nick Adams article by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al were reverted byHoaryhere on 5 July 2005. It was immediately reverted back by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et alhere who also addedmore fabrications stating that: "It is well known that Adams had a reputation as a voracious consumer of drugs."

More than a month later, despite much discussion on the articles Talk page, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al is still doing the same edits and reverting as per his Revision 7 August 2005 -this are the same unfounded speculation and outright fabrications repeated again. To try and have his fabrications remain in the article, this time, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al added a meaningless statement previously inserted byUser:Wyss that said "However, there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support the rumors that Adams was homosexual." This ploy by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al was used in several of his connected articles where he added a meaningless qualifier after filling the article with the fabrications and innuendo and inserting the word "homosexual" and "gay" and linking it to Elvis Presley. Thefabrications in this edit include:

1) A bitter court battle for custody of his children (which he won because his wife had an affair with another man)

2) William J. Mann'sBehind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood 1910-1969 (2001)

3) The repeated assertion that Dee Presley stated Elvis Presley had an affair withNick Adams.

It was pointed out to Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al that such gossip books do not meet Wikipedia standards for referencing specifically because reputable book reviewers likePublishers Weekly warn readershere aboutBoze Hadleigh who wrote about persons who "conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased" and what theLibrary Journal says about Boze Hadleigh: "Like his earlier volumes -- Hadleigh's work is somewhat suspect." Yet, on September 4th, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al went to theBoze Hadleigh article and insertedhere that he is ahistorian.

Note the massive amounts of debate on theTalk:Nick Adams/Archive 1 andTalk:Nick Adams created by the repeated edits and reverts by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al. Note too what he admitshere aboutDavid Bret,Gavin Lambert,Boze Hadleigh 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.

Despite everything, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al keeps it going on14 September 2005' with more references to David Bret and his bookhere stating Presley had a homosexual affair with Nick Adamshere

ELVIS PRESLEY article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• In line with Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al targetingNick Adams as being homosexual and asserting that in the Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Gavin Lambert, and James Dean articles, you will see how he inserted this repeatedly into the Elvis Presley article. However, because the Talk pages also come up inGoogle searches, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserted the namesNick Adams andDavid Bret and the word "homosexual" dozens of times and withlinks on each of the five archived Presley talk pages which is then repeated by others out of necessity when they try to refute his edits.

After inserting it in the Presley article repeatedly, onTalk:Elvis Presley/archive1 Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserts acompletely fabricated quote fromElvis and Me, the autobiography byPriscilla Presley, saying that:

• "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.

• Here[3] is an edit of3 April 2005 unsigned by80.141.244.68 withcomplete fabrications about Dee Presley, stating there is a book by her and quotes from this book. This caused an edit war (long before User:Ted Wilkes was involved) thatUser:DropDeadGorgias attempted to moderate, askingAnon 80.141.et al to sign his edits. (Note that later User:Ted Wilkes inserted the Anon's IP to identify his frequent misleading insertions).

One of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al's tactics has been to create the "Elvis conspiracy" by those who oppose his edits. On the Elvis Presley talk pageTalk:Elvis Presley/archive1 here Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 states:

• "A devoted Elvis fan is constantly deleting what is written about Presley's possible homosexuality in two different books on Elvis and some other sources. One of these sources is written by the king's stepmother, Dee Presley." Then, after this lie about Dee Presley, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 adds a bit later on the page:
• "In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance."

Five months and hundreds of reverts later, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 keeps this conspiracy theme going, creating the "Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley" page that was deleted, atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley.

Month's after the aforementioned April edits and again after many, many reverts of others by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al, User:Ted Wilkes confronted him with the fact thatno such Dee Presley book exists. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al then varied the article slightly, calling it a "manuscript book" and kept repeating his fabrications, now quoting from this "manuscript book." Note that even after User:Ted Wilkes (and others) pointed out that an unpublished manuscript, whose contents are in fact unknown, is not acceptable as a Wikipedia Reference, Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al continued to fabricate quotes from this manuscript which were then repeatedly reinserted in the Elvis Presley article and five months after he began with the deception, he was still quoting this and even created "Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley" and inserted it in the article as can be seen atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley.

This[4]3 April 2005 edit also included supposed direct quotes from a book on Presley byDavid Bret that were alsofabricated but after more than fifty reverts and reinsertions by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 of this fabrication, on19 August 2005 he finallyadmitted it was not truehere, declaring a "new"direct quote from "The blurb."

On26 April 2005 Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserted that Dee Presley "published an unfavorable article in theNational Enquirer"here and would insert this and revert others over and over despite being told the National Enquirer was not a credible source and that there is no record anywhere that Dee Presley ever made such a statement to the National Enquirer.

After repeatedly declaring there is a book by Dee Presley stating Elvis was gay, to it being a "manuscript book" that Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 quotes from, he then adds more lies stating that The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., the manuscript owner in 1995, is a defunct company. Once again, someone (User:Ted Wilkes) had to waste much time to research this to prove yet another fabrication as detailed on the Presley Talk pageTalk:Elvis Presley/archive2 #Article dispute notice.

Regardless of the 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 stated byUser:DropDeadGorgias on19 August 2005here. Despite this, a few weeks later Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al in his newly created article "Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley" and as can be seen atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley onSeptember 9 Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al reinserts theDavid Bret book reference and comes up with yet another version of its contentshere

Once the Elvis Presley and Nick Adams articles were Page Protected, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al simply continued to use the Talk pages as his platform because these too appear inGoogle searches. (SeeTalk:Elvis Presley/archive4 for the deliberate Section titles and content.) As late as September 16th, User:Onefortyone kept it going, inserting several more fabrications on Talk:Elvis Presleyhere including the following two items :

• 5) An article of 1957 mentioned inThe Guardian which claims that Elvis and gay entertainerLiberace were boyfriends.
• 6) A book on Elvis by the singer's second cousin, Earl Greenwood, published in 1990 and confirming that Elvis's had a sexual relationship with Nick Adams.

As to 5), User:Onefortyone is playing with words to make it seem likeThe Guardian is saying Elvis andLiberace were boyfriends. In fact the Guardian article[5] is about Presley’s womanizing and mocks a "scandal rag" inference to Presley. Note, anotheroutright lie, because even the referred to "scandal rag" never said Presley and Liberace were boyfriends.

As to 6), after I ordered a used copy of this book for $1.15, on September 19th I called on Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al onthis page and on hisUser Talk:Onefortyone page to provide the direct quote from the Greenwood book and the page number so I could verify his assertion. Onefortyone did not reply to his fabrication.

RAYMOND BURR article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al did four edits, the firsthere to the Raymond Burr article, inserting the word homosexual and making a reference and link toNatalie Wood.

NATALIE WOOD' article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• The first edit by Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al on11 June 2005 inNatalie Wood is to insert unsubstantiated gossip as seenhere declaring as fact thatNick Adams was gay so as to link this toElvis Presley. This began another edit war, this time withUser:Wyss thenUser:Ted Wilkes later became involved. Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al and made forty-two (42) edits to the article, the bulk of which are direct reversions or ones that insert a variation of the same thing.

JAMES DEAN article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• The very first edit on4 July 2005 by Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al is to inserthere an unfounded and unreferenced claim that James Dean was bisexual. Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al will revert this without explanation then insert an External linkhere to someone’s personal website that claims James Dean had a homosexual relationship withNick Adams. After others deleted these edits, six week later on16 August 2005 Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al reinserted themhere.

On September 3rd Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al added more to the James Dean article, making six edits that created a sectionhere which he titled "Rumors about Dean's homosexual leanings." This was followed by an edit war.

GAVIN LAMBERT article edits byOnefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

• Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al created the Gavin Lambert article. He refers to the book Lambert wrote on actress Natalie Wood but as seenhere, theentire reference is a claim that Wood dated gay men and statesNick Adams was gay.

Note that theGuardian newspaperhere warns readers that the Gavin Lambert book is gossip. Other edits by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al were insertions of unfounded personal opinions andweasel terms. Attempts by others to remove non-encyclopedic gossip from the article was met with the same tactics as in the other articles targeted by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al who made fifty-nine (59) edits to the article, the bulk of which are direct reversions or ones that insert a variation of the same thing.

I have been asked to help advocate. The below is an arbiter-friendly version of the above:

The issue outlined here for consideration by theWikipedia:Arbitration Committee is in line withWikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption.

• Revision as of 01:47, 4 April 2005
  • 80.141.244.68 inserts "Elvis: The Hollywood Years, a2002 biography byDavid Bret, claims the King wasgay. Bret says Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about ahomosexual affair between Elvis and actorNick Adams over his head like a sword. He made it clear that... if Elvis didn't toe the line, he'd let it get out. At that time, it could well have ruined his career. That is why Parker had so much control over him." Many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager. In her bookThe Intimate Life and Death of Elvis, Dee Presley, the king's stepmother, also says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with Nick Adams."

• 23:14, 26 April 2005
  • 80.141.206.211 inserts "It claimed that Elvis had an affair with actorNick Adams and thatColonel Tom Parker had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. Indeed, this accusation is proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels. In her bookThe Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Dee Presley says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and that he had an affair with Nick Adams. Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his boyfriend Nick Adams."

• 19:17, 1 June 2005
  • 80.141.197.237 inserts "Though Adams married actressCarol Nugent with whom he had two children, he regularly appears in lists of famousgay people. Before he got into acting, Adams was known as a "Hollywood hustler" who had a reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town.Lesbian actressNatalie Wood says that she dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and directorNicholas Ray.Elvis Presley too romanced young Nick. After his "teenage crush" on movie starJames Dean The King is said to have seenRebel Without a Cause some 44 times and ultimately had an affair with Adams who was the roommate of Dean"

• Page history of Nick Adams
  • The user made a great number of edits to this page, using both anon accounts and theUser:Onefortyone accounts. These are said to consist of a total of sixty seven, the majority of which being reverts amd restorations of nearly identical content.

Revision as of 14:15, 11 June 2005

• • 80.141.242.165 inserts "Natalie Wood was also in close contact with several gay men in Hollywood circles includingNick Adams,Raymond Burr,James Dean,Tab Hunter,Scott Marlowe, andNicholas Ray. She supportedMart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play,The Boys in the Band (1968). According to reviewer Clive Barnes, this play was the "finest treatment ofhomosexuality I have ever seen on stage.""

• Revision as of 19:47, 4 July 2005
  • 80.141.244.7 inserts "His very brief career,lifestyle, probablebisexuality, violent death and highly publicized funeral transformed James Dean into acult figure andpop icon of apparently timeless fascination."

• 15:57, 5 July 2005
  • 80.141.184.254 inserts "It is well known that Adams had a reputation as a voracious consumer of drugs....According to some accounts, before his success as an actor Adams was a maleprostitute catering to men" and more along the same lines.

• 16:22, 7 August 2005
  • 80.141.244.20 makes an edit nearly identical to the above.

• Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2#Article_dispute_notice
  • Multiple editors assert that the claims of homosexuality are false and being made to influence google searches.

Revision as of 13:42, 14 August 2005

• • Onefortyone inserts "In his younger years, Burr, who had hommosexual leanings, enhanced Natalie Wood’s life and loved the young actress. "When I was talking toDennis Hopper about that," Wood biographer Suzanne Finstad says, "he was saying I just cant wrap my mind around that one. But you know, I saw them together. They were definitely a couple. Who knows what was going on there."

• Revision as of 17:42, 16 August 2005
  • Onefortyone inserts "However, there is also the following statement by Boze Hadleigh from an interview with gay actor [Sal Mineo]"Hadleigh: James Dean and Nick Adams were roommates, as I'm sure you know. Were they also lovers? Sal Mineo: I didn't hear it from Jimmy, who was sort of awesome to me when we did Rebel. But Nick told me they had a big affair. I don't know if it was while they were living together or not. See[6]"

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley
  • User creates the above article which is deleted.

I debated long and hard about posting this because, in my opinion, putting it here will trigger a mass of edits with continuedkeyword stuffing by Onefortyone that will wind up all over the Internet as an invitation to others being paid to doSpamdexing to come to Wikipedia.

First though, I will get a vandalizing matter out of the way because it helps demonstrate who Wikipedia is dealing with. Here are a number of incidents of petty vandalism byUser:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141. done while he anonymously monitored his Wikipedia Spamdexing seeds. Based on the various edits I discovered, there was probably a lot more petty vandalism or disruption. I foundthis vandalism on the Church of Ireland article andthis, too. It was reverted but ANON 80.141. vandalized the page againhere and it was reverted again by 13:53, 20 June 2005User:Splash (rv to last by Jez)here

And,here is childish vandalism by ANON 80.141.

ANON 80.141. also vandalizes the page ofWikipedia Administrator RickK three times in a row: The first timehere and then the second onehere and the third onehere. ANON 80.141. was then warned byUser:Plato for personal attackshere . Based on the comment, it appears ANON 80.141. might have had run-ins withWikipedia Administrator RickK in the past who I note left Wikipedia because of people like Onefortyone|ANON 80.141.

However, what is most important that is going on is explainedhere in the WikipediaSpamdexing article. User:Onefortyone|ANON 80.141. pretends to be naïve and only someone dedicated to his just cause when in fact he has expert knowledge. (This innocence has been effective as seen on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop where he is given sincere advice that "Somehow you need to understand that this sort of thing is not conclusive evidence.") However, Onefortyone knows exactly what he is doing. On July 8th, before he was given no choice but to create a Wikipedia account (see below), he anonymously edited the Spamdexing articlehere and inserted a link to TrustRank from which he thencreated theTrustRank articlehere. ANON 80.141 is actually laughing at the system combating keyword spamming that he has been able to beat becauseGoogle orYahoo never use Spam filter on Wikipedia's Web site or its Web pages and Onefortyone|ANON 80.141's seed words are spread all over Wikipedia. For his Spamdexing, TrustRank actually enhances the ranking for Onefortyone|ANON 80.141's Wikipedia pages appearing at Google by getting rid of other websites' junk. Tabloid books like the Bret book on Elvis Presley don't get any promotion by the publisher who sells them at Amazon and/or Barnes and Noble websites but are not registered with national distributors such as Baker & Taylor or Ingram Book Group so aren’t in retail stores. And, book reviewers like Publishers Weekly and Kirkus declined to review the Presley book. As such, the open nature of Wikipedia editing with multiple pages and its high ranking on Internet searches is perfect for Spamdexing. There is no other website where someone can get for free such widespread publicity.

You will see from the following onTalk:Natalie Wood how it works where there was an edit war with ANON 80.141. and Wyss as a result of his edits. Wyss hasn't yet seen enough about what is going on but knows something is up when she saidthis. The next day she then saidthis and then after eight days of fending off ANON 80.141, by then she knows what is happening and spells it outhere.

When seeding Wikipedia, it of course is highly desirable for Onefortyone to obtain legitimacy for the Bret book/homosexual/Presley/Nick Adams reference in an Encyclopedia article. However, even if prevented from being inserted in any article it does not stop seeding. Those doing Spamdexing can, as Onefortyone is a master at, use Wikipedia Talk pages (for both articles and Users) as well as their archived pages because they will all come up on Google/Yahoo searches. Wikipedia Talk pages are a very powerful source for Spamdexing because they can insert any fabrication, misquote, reference to any external site or say anything at all and it does not get edited out. As such, whenseeded keywords lead someone to come across a Wikipedia Talk page at Google then Onefortyone|ANON 80.141. has all the other links on that Wikipedia page to lead them where he wants. Seeded words mean that a page even comes up on Google for such isolated things as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors" about Elvis Presleyhere when you type into Google the name Elvis Presley plus a seeded keyword like homosexual, you will get it. However, to draw people in, it cannot appear as "stale" and forgotten on an old archived page, so those doing Spamdexing increase the seeding such as we now see with new things being added to the older seed words like the Earl Greenwood book etc. As such, you will see that Onefortyone|ANON 80.141. repeats the same things over and over and keeps adding more and more fabrications and/or distortions so as to expand the Spamdexing shelf life, or, as he hopes, actually convince people at Wikipedia to again allow a Bret book reference in the Presley article and others.

Do a Google search for "Elvis Presley, David Bret" and you will now get a huge number of references to Wikipedia, its mirrors/clones, and other sites quoting Wikipedia and each other. Just a few months ago a similar search brought only a handful of results. Do a Google search today for Elvis Presley, Earl Greenwood and you don’t get much, but after just a few weeks on a Wikipedia talk page you will get a Wikipedia listing at Google with Onefortyone's seeded word "gay." Using the Arbitration Workshop there were six more insertions made on different Wikipedia pages by Onefortyone on October 12th about the Greenwood book/Presley/Adams/gay (you can bet he will do more). In a few weeks these distortions will create a large volume of references on Google or Yahoo etc. searches. And, anyone clicking on one of these Wikipedia sites will in turn be led to David Bret book references.

When ANON 80.141. finally created an account and signed in as Onefortyone, he only did so because he was against the wall. His edits were all being reversed by two Wikipedians (who he claimed were sockpuppets) and he was stymied. He askedUser:JCarriker for Mediation but was told to sign in. At 03:10, 24 July 2005 Angela referred toCheckUserhere and ANON 80.141 then learned the CheckUser only went back seven days. (Look below on this J.Carriker Talk page to Section header: "Accurate contributions" and look at the enormous text inserted by ANON that is again massively seeded with keywords.)

To keep his Mediation going so as to try to keep Spamdexing, ANON 80.141. signed in as User:Onefortyone later in the day at 19:31, 24 July 2005, after learning that CheckUser went back seven days. Although he requested the mediation, the new Onefortyone immediately told JCarriker "I have now created a Wikipedia account. I will be on vacation with my family the next two weeks"here. When he comes back, seven days are gone by and he can now safely edit without his previous vandalism and Spamdexing edits being revealed by CheckUser.

Note also that Onefortyone| ANON 80.141. plays the anti-gay card, telling JCarriker (and others) "it is Wyss/Ted Wilkes's intention to suppress any reference which supports the assertion that some popular male movie stars were gay." This charge he repeats many times on seeded pages which has a dual purpose: 1) it affects the Wikipedian's sense of fairness and decency (so effective that it was made a Section titled "Change in public opinion" by the Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop) and 2) for the Google searchers drawn to the Wikipedia page by the seeded words it motivates them to buy the Bret book that tells the "truth" about Presley, Nick Adams etc. To add to this tactic, on numerous pages Onefortyone inserted the reference to a "Worldwide Organization" who only write favorably about Elvis and who try to suppress anyone who speaks the "truth."

Onefortyone|ANON 80.141 needs to seed as many pages as possible in order to keep his Spamdexing alive and his paycheck coming. He appeals to others on their Talk page but while eliciting their help, he inserts a massive amount of text seeded with keywords. As an example, lookhere at the seeding on the page ofUser:CatherineMunro, someone not involved. Dedicated users have kept Onefortyone off the articles, nevertheless he has used article talk pages and User talk pages to the hilt for his Spamdexing.

-Ted Wilkes01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes accuses me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. I would interpret this as a personal attack which is not allowed according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I never visited and vandalized theChurch of Ireland, theBelgium and theUser talk:RickK pages, as Wilkes falsely claimed. This must have been another person using a similar dynamic IP address. I indeed created a new article onTrustRank because I stumbled across a webpage dealing with this matter. I am always interested in getting better search results on Google, and I am not happy with the fact that there are now so many similar websites imitating Wikipedia on the World Wide Web, because this negatively affects my own search activities. By the way, this article on TrustRank certainly proves that I am not a "one-topic editor," as has been falsely claimed by my opponents in the edit war. It should also be noted whatUser:Sam Spade says on his talk page: "I don't personally believe your fabricating these things or trying to influence google counts. My guess is your simply advocating a POV. I personally don't feel that is contrary to our encyclopedic purposes..." See[7]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes is only accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, etc, as he did in the past. He is not earnestly discussing the several independent, and published, sources I am providing, presumably because these sources support the view that Elvis and some other Hollywood celebrities had homosexual leanings, which is not in line with Wilkes's personal opinion.Onefortyone11:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes constantly claims, without reason, that all my edits are fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. In my opinion, these claims are only made in order to justify this user's reverting and deleting tactics. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes repeatedly called me a vandal or liar on several talk pages. He does not mention the fact that I am frequently citing several independent sources (books, articles, reviews, websites) supporting my view, as everybody can see from the talk pages. See, for instance,Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources. As he cannot deny that these sources exist, he tries to denigrate them. There is also the absurd accusation that I may repeat unsubstantiated references in order to keep a campaign for David Bret book sales alive on Google searches. Ted Wilkes also asserts that many times several editors have shown that I was wrong or proven that I have falsified my statements, etc. etc. The only users who frequently claim that this is the case are my opponents,User:Ted Wilkes andUser:Wyss.

Some examples of alleged fabrications:

• One publisher of David Bret's books says that this author is one of "Britain's leading show business biographers." As this is only claimed by the publisher, I have removed the word "leading". What should be wrong with this? See[8]

The Judy Spreckels article says (see[9]),

She once described herself as having been like a sister to Elvis but never a girlfriend.

...I was with him and the guys all the time. There wasn't a crowd then, just a few guys. Back then, she says, Elvis was surrounded by the first wave of what would become known as the Memphis Mafia. Spreckels was the only woman in the group.

I said in my contributions that Judy had only a platonic friendship with Elvis and raised the question on the discussion page that Elvis may have preferred men, as he reportedly spent day and night with members from the Memphis Mafia. What should be wrong with this? The Spreckels article further states,

In Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend, actor Nick Adams.

This proves that gay actor Nick Adams and Elvis were friends at that time.

As it is too boring to reply to every unfounded accusation by Ted Wilkes, the arbitrators may read my comment to similar claims here:[10]. Not incidentally, Ted Wilkes has totally deleted my comment from that page. See[11].

The facts

The fact is that there is an edit war going on between me andUser:Ted Wilkes concerning the claims that Elvis Presley and some other Hollywood celebrities may have had homosexual leanings. As far as I can see, this assertion first appeared in the article onElvis Presley in 2003.

On 7 November 2003User:NightCrawler, presumably an Elvis fan, deleted the 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 posted by Ted Wilkes. See[13].

Some different comment concerning author David Bret and his book was added. See[14]. This was repeatedly deleted. See, for instance,[15],[16],[17]. AdministratorDropDeadGorgias was forced to restore this comment. See[18].

In November 2003 NightCrawler seems to have been hardbanned by Angela. See[19]. But NightCrawler reappeared asUser:JillandJack creating a new, denigrating article on biographer David Bret. See[20]. This biased article was rewritten by me on 4 April. See[21]. In the meantime, JillandJack was hardbanned by two administrators. SeeUser:JillandJack.

Since May 2005 there was an edit war between Ted Wilkes and me concerning the article onDavid Bret and particularly his book,Elvis: The Hollywood Years, presumably because of Bret's claim that Elvis 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 positiveGuardian review of a book written by Bret. See[23]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes repeatedly reverted the article to the version he preferred, accusing me of distortions, fabrications, being a vandal, etc. See[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33], etc. etc.

According to administratorDropDeadGorgias, my version of the text was far less POV than the biased version Ted Wilkes tried to reinstate. The administrator said,

It seems to me that the old version of the page [i.e. my version] is far less POV than this current page [i.e. the version reinstated by Ted Wilkes]. 1) The old version mentions the controversy surrounding Bret's finding's well enough, and 2) why did the new editors remove a perfectly fineGuardian link? I support reversion to the old version. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 14:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

See[34]. For a critical analysis of the biased text preferred by Ted Wilkes, see[35].

Ted Wilkes repeatedly accused me of "unfounded statements and outright fabrication," though I provided several independent sources supporting my view. See, for instance,Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources.

AdministratorEd Poor warned Ted Wilkes to refrain from his personal remarks against me. See[36].

Ted Wilkes added a statement to the Talk:Elvis Presley page in which he denigrated the claims by David Bret and similar statements by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Stanley Presley. He also declared that Bret's book sold zero copies. Significantly, the same questionable assertion was made byUser:JillandJack in his biased version of the David Bret article. His comment proves that Wilkes, as an Elvis fan, must have been very familiar with certain gossip books written on Elvis by authors of the world-wide Elvis industry. He already knew that the singer's stepmother, Dee Presley, had claimed that Elvis had homosexual leanings and slept with his mother, etc. He says,

...when she needs money, Dee stanley claims he was gay, had sex with his mother, and other ludicrous statements that no one would listen to. Her own son, David Stanley dismissed her rantings...

See[37]

Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See, for instance,[38]

Discussion of the deleting tactics used byUser:Wyss. SeeTalk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits

When administratorMel Etitis confirmed that there may be "a good deal of circumstantial evidence that suggests a strong link between you [i.e. Wyss] and Ted Wilkes — similar styles, even to your user pages, similar aggressive and short-tempered approach to other users, etc., not to mention the very similar comments and editing interest," User:Wyss repeatedly addressed this administrator as "dearest troll".[39],[40].

Here is a discussion of sources concerning the claim that Elvis Presley's friend, Nick Adams was gay:[41]. It proves the fact that there are several published sources which state that Adams was gay.

I provided a well-balanced paragraph based on several independent sources (and considering critical remarks by my opponents) which supports the view that James Dean was bisexual:[42] See alsoTalk:James Dean /archive1. My opponents, Ted Wilkes and Wyss, did not accept this paragraph.

Ted Wilkes totally deleted the "Rumors" section from the James Dean article disregarding the independent sources cited in this section. See[43]. In addition, on 2 October Wilkes removed the category "bisexual actors" from the James Dean page. See[44], though several sources prove that Dean was bisexual. SeeTalk:James Dean /archive1.

Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly deleted my quotes from Priscilla Presley's book,Elvis and Me, which prove that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and strongly suggest that the singer had severe problems with his sex-life as far as his sexual relationships with women were concerned. See[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51]. It seems as if these users wish to suppress information they do not like.

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See[52],[53],[54],[55]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See[56].

There are similar deleting tactics byUser:Wyss. See[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63]. Such a removal of comments from talk pages is unacceptable.

Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted without reason references to the facts that authorGavin Lambert was an insightful chronicler of Hollywood, that his movie,The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone includes a homosexual subtext and that he has stated in his Natalie Wood biography that Wood dated many bisexual and gay men in Hollywood, e.g.Nick Adams,Raymond Burr,Nicholas Ray,James Dean,Tab Hunter andScott Marlowe. See[64],[65],[66],[67],[68], etc. For sources supporting my contributions, seeTalk:Gavin Lambert.Onefortyone01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass ofpersonal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See[69] and[70].

User:Wyss deleted a quote from theSal Mineo page which proves that gay actor Sal Mineo would have liked to have had a sexual relationship with James Dean. See[71]

User:Wyss deleted a link to a Dean biography (see[72]) which supports the view thatJames Dean had homosexual leanings. See[73]

• User:Ted Wilkes cites the Elvis biographerPeter Guralnick who says thatNick Adams was a Hollywood hustler (see[74]) and a close friend to Elvis. This is in line with Boze Hadleigh's book,Hollywood Gays andthis web biography of James Dean, which also state that Adams hustled during the 1950s. These statements also support the view that Nick Adams was gay.

• User:Onefortyone provides quotes from Earl Greenwood's book,The Boy who would be King (1990) concerning the fact that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams. See[75]

• User 129.241.134.241 states on theTalk:Elvis Presley page:

what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something "bad" about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the "system" prevents those things from staying there for too long. See[76]

• Wyss totally deleted a paragraph from theNick Adams page, although this paragraph was supported by several independent sources. See[77]

• User:KeithD, whose experiences, according to his own words, "are largely the same as those of Ted Wilkes," still does not accept the new facts I am providing, although he had asked me to cite from Earl Greenwood's book. See[78] andUser_talk:KeithD#Just_for_your_information

• Ted Wilkes says on theWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Additional_reply_by_Ted_Wilkes page:

The Earl Greenwood book does not state that "Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams" as previously asserted by Onefortyone and does not state they had a homosexual relationship. Elvis cried on the steps (notice Onefortyone's quotation marks) at the time of his mother's death. Onefortyone continues to quote out of context and distort realities.

This is total misinformation, as Greenwood, on page 285, clearly refers to the death of Elvis's friend, Nick Adams, and confirms that they had "intimacies" and Adams "had wanted 'too much'..." All of Elvis's reactions to the death of his mother are dealt with in another chapter of the book. See pages 225 ff. All of my direct quotes are unequivocally accurate and from the following edition of the book: New York: Dutton, a devision of Penguin Books USA Inc., First Printing, September 1990.

Wyss completely deleted the specific references I made to several published sources which all prove that Nick Adams's friend and roommateJames Dean was bisexual. See[79]

Ted Wilkes accuses me of spamdexing and childish vandalism, which is certainly a personal attack. See[80] and[81]

Ted Wilkes completely deleted a whole paragraph including references to books which all prove thatJames Dean was bisexual. See[82]

My evidence isn't 100% related to the issue, but I hope it's sufficiently relevant. It primarily relates to my discussions with Onefortyone regarding the credibility of his sources. It's somewhat of a "me too" post in that my experiences are largely the same as those of Ted Wilkes. I hope it shows that those who have raised the issue of the credibility of sources aren't doing so because they're "opponents" in an edit war, or motivated by Elvis fandom, or the like. Over a relatively short time period, Onefortyone was involved in discussions with someone new and unconnected to the whole issue about the credibility of the sources, but no headway was made, and a singular point of view was repeatedly pushed.KeithD(talk)21:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 21:57, 5 September 2005
  • Onefortyone asks me, as an "unbiased Wikipedia user" to look at theTalk:Elvis Presley page.

• 21:12, 6 September 2005
  • Onefortyone describes those Wikipedians who disagree with him as his opponents.

• 01:23, 7 September 2005
  • Following discussion of the credibility of the sources, Onefortyone accuses me of being a sockpuppet ofUser:Wyss

• 12:30, 10 September 2005
  • I refer Onefortyone toWikipedia:Verifiability regarding some of the sources he has provided. (The two of us have discussed the credibility of the sources on a number of occasions prior, and after this, but I imagine that to cite them all would be excessive and unnecessary. This one is mentioned primarily to show that Onefortyone's attention was drawn to Wikipedia policy).

• 17:48, 11 September 2005
  • Onefortyone raises sources whose credibility have previously been debated.
• 19:06, 11 September 2005
  • I respond to explain their lack of credibility.
• 23:07, 11 September 2005
  • Onefortyone explains that he is looking for sources that support his point of view.

• 08:31, 12 September 2005
  • I explain about Wikipedia's neutral point of view, and how looking for sources that support a point of view can be at odds with this.

• 01:04, 13 September 2005
  • Onefortyone does not believe thatWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley was a broad consensus to delete.
• 09:29, 13 September 2005
  • I explain on the Elvis Presley talk page that I've listed the article at RfC, so as to get feedback from others as to the credibility of the sources.
• 22:45, 13 September 2005
  • Ted Wilkes archives the Elvis Presley talk page.
• 23:29, 13 September 2005
  • Onefortyone suggests that those denouncing the credibility of his sources are doing so because they're part of the "world-wide Elvis industry" and/or because they're opposed to "Wikipedia articles which do not support a favorable view of the singer".

• 08:43, 14 September 2005
  • I explain that I'm not part of the world-wide Elvis industry, and my objections are solely on the basis of credibility.
• 10:45, 14 September 2005
  • User:Wyss does much the same.
• 11:36, 14 September 2005
  • Wyss draws to the attention of Wikipedians following the RfC the relevant pages that were archived by Ted Wilkes.
• 14:51, 14 September 2005
  • Onefortyone resubmits to the talk page the source he had cited on 11 September, and which had been suggested by me to be a non-credible source. This information was still in the archives of the talk page, and other Wikipedians' attention had been drawn to these archives by Wyss.

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

• Noindexed pages