Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Information verified and reliable

1) Information which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. These seem to be the central Wikipedia policies this matter turns on. Fred Bauder 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. On 19 September 2005, User:Ted Wilkes falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page I had created to a Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content, which was a summary of facts supporting the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings, has been totally deleted by Wilkes. See [1]. I hope the arbitrators are able to read what was written on this page. Onefortyone 16:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Official Wikipedia:Policy states "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable". A precedent for the Reliable/unimpeachable sources policy, has been established through a Wikipedia community discussion and vote at Talk:Abraham Lincoln/archive#Lincoln's sexuality with respect to the C. A. Tripp book reference in the Abraham Lincoln article. This precedent-setting vote was then subjected to a Wikipedia:Peer review as part of the Wikipedia:Featured article process. Such reference to the Abraham Lincoln precedent and ground rules was enunciated for User:Onefortyone/Anon et.al. by User:Func's Revision as of 15:30, 3 July 2005 at Talk:Natalie Wood. After ignoring User:Func's request, User:Onefortyone/Anon et.al. was advised of this again in detail by User:Ted Wilkes at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive3 (see actual page, edit 23:14, August 17, 2005 no longer on "history" list). - Ted Wilkes 23:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I do not understand what Ted Wilkes is here talking about. I have used several published sources supporting my view. Gavin Lambert's Wood biography was praised by several reviewers and Natalie Wood's daughter:

The Guardian says, "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also this positive Guardian review: [2].

Film historian Professor Joseph McBride wrote (see [3])

The novelist, screenwriter, and biographer Gavin Lambert, a British expatriate who has lived in Los Angeles since the 1950s, is a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements.

Ted Wilkes has repeatedly, and biasedly, included references in the article that Lambert's biography on Natalie Wood is a gossip book in order to denigrate this source which has lots of positive reviews. Natasha Gregson Wagner, daughter of Natalie Wood, calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." Michelle Merryweather states, "Drawing exclusively on private papers and interviews with those who knew her best - including her husband Robert Wagner - Lambert presents us with the richest imaginable portrait of this beguiling, tragic woman." And Publishers Weekly says:

Lambert follows her (Wood) from such childhood triumphs as Miracle on 34th Street to her breakthrough adult part opposite James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause. Wood's overlapping affairs with Rebel director Nicholas Ray and cast member Dennis Hopper, and brief romance with Elvis Presley, will be familiar material to aficionados. But Lambert reveals deep sensitivity and understanding of her development as an actress, and he's one of the few authors to capture the depth and beauty of her relationship with Robert Wagner. Lambert also effectively highlights Wood's shrewd professional moves, including her pretense to boss Jack Warner that she didn't want to star in Splendor in the Grass, because she knew he would refuse to let her appear in it if she displayed enthusiasm. The shooting of Wood's film with Robert Redford, Inside Daisy Clover, has special authenticity, since Lambert wrote the screenplay and witnessed her frustrations after several crucial voice-overs were cut from the final print. Details regarding Wood's tragic drowning are inevitably speculative and vital questions remain unanswered. But Lambert eloquently clarifies the self-destructive reasons behind Wood's addictions and insecurities, and in the end, readers will feel they truly know the subject more than they do in most biographies. Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gay celebrities

1) Onefortyone, usually editing as an anonymous ip in the 80.141 range, has added information to a number of articles concerning Hollywood and other celebrities regarding their sexual orientation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Locus of dispute Fred Bauder 14:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This is not the issue expressed by User:Ted Wilkes. Unfortunately, I did not ensure this matter was adequately presented at the evidence page which has resulted in confusion for which I apologize. The heart of the matter is the insertion by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al of unsubstantiated information from unreliable sources into a set of specific articles, intentionally interlinking them, and knowingly using numerous fabrications and distortions in order to justify his unreliable sources. At no time would I object to sexual orientation references if 1) it is relative and meaningful to the article and 2) that it is encyclopedic, not unsubstantiated gossip libel-free because it is about a deceased person (as enunciated by all reputable sources such as Publishers Weekly as seen here). And, 3) that any such reference meets the criteria for accepted Wikipedia policy and established precedents for Wikipedia:Reliable sources as specified above in Section: "Information verified and reliable." My Request for arbitration stated that "the issue at hand was not about a difference of opinion" but that Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 et al was 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. And, that Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al, in his agenda to have a reference at Wiikpedia that Elvis Presley and Nick Adams were gay lovers, has focused almost exclusively on the David Bret, Natalie Wood, and Gavin Lambert articles with one theme so as to interconnect a homosexual assertion about Elvis Presley having an affair with Nick Adams. Onefortyone only edits these articles and in each has repeatedly fabricated edits and deliberately distorted the content. - Ted Wilkes 23:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. These are the same false accusations Ted Wilkes constantly repeats. In my opinion, he simply does not like information which is not in line with his personal view. Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Change in public opinion

1.1) Acceptance of gay celebrities has greatly increased. Some persons generally not perceived by the public to be gay or lesbian have turned out to be. This is a matter of some public interest. Credible information is sometimes published regarding such matters and can be encyclopedic, see Tab Hunter Confidential: The Making of a Movie Star, Tab Hunter and Eddie Muller, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill (14 October, 2005), ISBN 1565124669 and Man Who Invented Rock Hudson: The Pretty Boys And Dirty Deals of Henry Willson, Pub Group West (9 September, 2005), hardcover, 325 pages, ISBN 078671607X

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. We can go too far one way or the other with this. An article regarding someone such as Elvis Presley or James Dean who never came out should not be dominated by intimations of a gay lifestyle anymore than an article about a known gay individual such as Raymond Burr. The focus need to be on the accomplishments of the person which make an article on them encyclopedic.

Comment by parties:

1. I do not think that the article would be dominated by intimations of Elvis's gay lifestyle if there is only a short note about the fact that there are claims about the singer's homosexual leanings to be found in some publications. Ted Wilkes has written several paragraphs on Elvis the womanizer. See "Relationships" section. But according to Priscilla Presley's account Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and other women. See [4] Onefortyone 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The only issue with respect to inclusion of a reference to a person's sexuality in a Wikipedia article is that the source must meet the criteria set by Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy and include a peer review, all of which must meet the precedent corollary to that policy as established at the Wikipedia:Featured article on Abraham Lincoln. As to the books cited above 1) Tab Hunter wrote his own admission to being gay, and 2) Robert Hofler has the journalistic credentials that might, subject to examination, warrant his peer reviewed book being listed in the "See also" section of an article as done in the Abraham Lincoln article. - Ted Wilkes 23:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Interestingly, Ted Wilkes has included lots of paragraphs about Elvis's sexual relationships with women in the "Relationships" section of the Elvis Presley article, some of them of questionable quality (see also Talk:Elvis and Me). I never deleted these paragraphs. I do not understand why a short remark concerning existing rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings should not be added to the same section. Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sources cited by Onefortyone

2) The sources cited by Onefortyone vary in quality, some being of doubtful reliability, some quite credible, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, one of the better examples, another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Sources are surprisingly good Fred Bauder 14:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. User:Onefortyone/Anon et al has already admitted here that: "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." As to "Sources are surprisingly good," I'm not seeing in what context they are actually good for. The first cited is a Gay magazine that does not mention Nick Adams or Elvis Presley or James Dean. The publication's references to Dean offers no proof, only gossip. Part of the Gay magazine's gossip is a claim that Dean spent a great deal of time alone with Rev. James DeWeerd, minister of the local Wesleyan Methodist church, and makes the incredibly reckless assertion that this is "suggestive of a sexual relationship or molestation." The second source cited here] doesn't refer to Nick Adams, Elvis Presley or James Dean. It does refer to Gavin Lambert but is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is worth noting however, that Lambert is a gossip writer, as User:Onefortyone/Anon et al has admitted, and that the Guardian newspaper warns readers here that the Gavin Lambert book on Natalie Wood is gossip and gossip is a contradiction of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. - Ted Wilkes 23:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Ted Wilkes continues to denigrate the sources I am providing. They prove, for instance, that Gavin Lambert is not a gossip book writer, as Wilkes claimed again and again, but a reputed biographer and an insightful chronicler of Hollywood. See also the quotes above. Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edits by Onefortyone

3) Some edits by Onefortyone seem appropriate, see [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The above edit is not the right example for referencing. [This Revision as of 00:34, 4 April 2005 by Onefortyone/80.141.253.77 inserts the fabrication that that David Bret is "one of Britain's leading show business biographers" and in conjunction with the Bret book claiming Presley's homosexuaslity, Onefortyone/80.141.253.77 adds another fabrication quoting as fact from a non-existent book, something he will do more over and over and repeatedly revert anyone who tries to remove his fabrication. - Ted Wilkes 23:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The information that Bret is one of Britain's leading show business biographers comes from the publisher. See, for instance, [6] Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original reseach by Onefortyone

4) In some instances Onefortyone has used sources as material to support conclusions which he has arrived at himself, for example this edit [7] to David Bret is supported by [8] which says "Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend, actor Nick Adams." Onefortyone converts "his friend" to "his boyfriend" He states "this accusation is proved", citing an unpublished book by Dee Presley and an interview with "his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels". However, a platonic relationship is only implied in the interview. In the interview the language is, "We loved each other, as it says on my picture. But it was just a really terrific friendship." Likewise this language, "Sorry, Lambert himself was a homosexual and part the gay circles in Hollywood. If he says that Adams was gay, then it must be true." [9] while logical, is not a source in itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The conclusions drawn by Onefortyone, while not unreasonable, are not actually set forth in the source material in so many words. Fred Bauder 20:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The Judy Spreckels article says,

She was the sister Elvis Presley never had, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the exciting days of his early career.

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

See [10]. I would interpret this as supporting the view that they had only a platonic friendship.

Here is a quote from Gavin Lambert's biography on Natalie Wood:

Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel. (p. 199)

Interestingly, there is no doubt about the fact that Sal Mineo was gay. Lambert also states in his book that Natalie Wood dated many other gay men in Hollywood circles.

Members from the Memphis Mafia confirm that Elvis and Nick Adams were close friends. There are even photographs showing Elvis and Nick Adams sitting together in a car: [11] Onefortyone 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Somehow you need to understand that this sort of thing is not conclusive evidence. I lived in a commune with gay people as did several other straight people, no amount of pictures of us eating together, playing ball together, etc. constitute evidence of anything more than friendship. This jumping to conclusions is fine for your private musings but does not belong in an encyclopedia or does any other type of original thinking. Fred Bauder 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Judy Spreckels friendship as the president of one of Presley’s fan clubs is immaterial. The issue is that Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 knowingly fabricated a quote from the newspaper article and inserted it as fact into the Wikipedia article in order to deceive so as to give credence the rest of his unsupportable agenda. And, he repeated this assertion many times until confronted with the facts by User:Ted Wilkes. Note too that Onefortyone has quoted Gavin Lambert above despite already admitting here that Lambert is a gossip author unacceptable to Wikipedia. However, when it is convenient, Onefortyone/80.14 et al has quoted Gavin Lambert repeatedly but when it disproves his claim that Presley and Adams had a homosexual relationship, he conveniently leaves out that passage from page 119 of the Lambert book (Knopf hardcover version) as pointed out in full detail by User:Ted Wilkes here and confirmed in the Random House Large print edition at Amazon.com here. - Ted Wilkes 23:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. This statement cited by Wilkes (see [[12]) was made about books on Elvis, not about Gavin Lambert. In his Wood biography, Lambert clearly states that Wood's first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams. See [13] Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Citing of nonexistent sources by Onefortyone

5) Onefortyone, in at least one instance, cites a source which does not exist in the form cited [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This instance exposes a willingness to exaggerate in order to get his point across. Which brings up the question of what point he is attempting to make Fred Bauder 14:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I must confess that I have used the following source for my contribution:

March 30, 2002

Elvis Presley's Gay Secret

by (RGS/TG/BRC)

ELVIS PRESLEY's HOLLYWOOD YEARS

[According to] BRET, the legendary rocker's "greedy" manager COLONEL TOM PARKER blackmailed him into virtual slavery by threatening to leak reports of the romance. Bret says, "Parker held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor NICK 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's why Parker had so much control over him." Presley's sexual experimentation began with a "teenage crush" on actor JAMES DEAN that grew into an obsession, says the book. The star saw REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE 44 times and eventually became close pals with Dean's Rebel co-star Nick Adams. Bret says, "Adams claimed that he had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis 'agreed to be his date' for a preview of Nick's 1956 film THE LAST WAGON." Presley, by then a sex symbol sending legions of women swooning, became smitten with Adams and even tried unsuccessfully to get him a part in his first movie LOVE ME TENDER, says Bret. In 1958, "Nick Adams and Elvis stayed in the same room of the same hotel in New Orleans while Elvis was filming KING CREOLE there," the author reveals. Many journalists' attempts to 'out' the star in the past were thwarted by his manager.

(World Entertainment News Network) See [15] and [16]

Here is a direct quote from the introduction of Bret's book:

"...at least two accounts of Elvis's 'friendship' with Nick Adams were sold to scandal-rags during the paranoic moral mid-fifties. These stories were bought back by his manager in an attempt to keep the wholesome Presley image intact, also allowing the controlling force, 'Colonel' Tom Parker, to manipulate Elvis for another twenty years. Parker knew only too well that, had a story hit the press implying that Elvis had so much as associated with a wildly promiscuous homosexual, ... not only would Elvis's career have ended abruptly, so too would have Parker's seemingly limitless source of income."

In addition, it is stated on the back cover of the book that the author has unearthed "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 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with appropriate cites to Bret's book. You must be aware that there is some suspicion that you are Bret. If you are, welcome to Wikipedia, but obviously editing your own article or excessively promoting your book is inappropriate and certain to be more distressing to you then to those who might object. I think what I want is better citing when an unusual assertion is made and that cite to a good source. Also proportionality, a section, "rumors of homosexual romances," is fine in the Elvis Presley article. An introduction which starts off, Elvis Presley, a closeted homosexual, was a famous American rock and roll singer..." is not. Fred Bauder 14:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You can be sure that I am not David Bret. These absurd accusations by users Wyss and Ted Wilkes really make me smile. They have also claimed that I may be the sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator. But let us return to the topic. At the beginning of the dispute, there was a brief note in the "Relationships" section of the Elvis Presley article:

Elvis: The Hollywood Years, a 2002 biography by David Bret, claims the King was gay. Bret, noted for his preoccupation with homosexuality, says Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick 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." According to Bret, many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager. In her manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis, Dee Presley, the king's stepmother, who also published an unfavorable article in the National Enquirer, also says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with Nick Adams. Despite these accusations, just about every other author, who writes in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual.

In July, there was much discussion about an appropriate version of the paragraph. See [17], [18] In August 2005, we had, as a compromise, the following, partly critical paragraph in the article:

===Was Elvis gay?===

Decades after his death, two published sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay. Bret (who made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities) 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." According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager.

In her unpublished but often cited manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis (and an article in the National Enquirer) Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley also claims Elvis had sexual encounters with men and alleges an affair with his friend Nick Adams.

However, David Bret has been widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts in his various books about celebrities and Dee Presley has been criticized for having personal and financial motives for her claims. Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, these two are the only known sources of these claims and one of them is unpublished. Supporters of the claims made by David Bret and Dee Presley note that while most authors do describe Elvis as heterosexual, they are writing in the context of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views of the singer. [19] Critics of this view note that it is contradicted by the success of books by authors like Albert Goldman and several members of the Memphis Maphia which have been scathingly critical of Elvis' lifestyle.

This was repeatedly deleted but reinstated in a revised version even by Wyss. See [20]. However, in my opinion, the paragraph still needs rewriting.

In should also be noted that, in the said "Relationships" section of the Elvis Presley article, Ted Wilkes claims that Priscilla described Elvis in her book

as a very passionate man with a Pentecostal upbringing that condemed pre-martial sex as a sin and was part of his generation's double standard which cheered men for sexual prowess with women but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she would be labeled a "slut."

An Amazon search proves that the words "Pentecostal", "pre-martial sex", "virginity" and "slut" nowhere appear in Elvis and Me. See [21], [22], [23], [24]. The fact is that Priscilla clearly states in her book that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and other women. I do not understand why users Wyss and Ted Wilkes deleted this relevant information from the Elvis and Me and Talk:Elvis and Me pages. See [25]and [26]. Onefortyone 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

From Ted Wilkes:

2) First, I regret the length of the following response but it is necessary in light of the massive statements and responses made above.

In addition to the Wikipedia Reliable Sources policy and its relative precedent established at Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality, the academic/journalistic integrity required by Wikipedia policy for a reference to the David Bret book was already discussed extensively and a consensus arrived at. Accordingly, Wikipedia Administrator User:DropDeadGorgias, who had bent over backwards to accommodate and listen to User:Onefortyone, removed the reference here in his Revision as of 21:49, 19 August 2005 with the Edit comment: "Was Elvis gay? - removed by consensus. sole source is dubious and unestablished in notability."

As stated in my Request for Arbitration, a frequent tactic of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al is to insert a fabrication and/or distortion, then breach Wikipedia: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. He also obfuscates and distorts things as asserted by both User:KeithD and User:Wyss here and also deliberately quotes things in articles out of context as well as distorting the words of other editors as he did to User:DropDeadGorgias so as to mislead the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee as seen here .

The statement by Onefortyone that I made up something said by Priscilla Presley is another deliberate falsehood. User Onefortyone made numerous edits to the Elvis and Me article and knew exactly what I said. I posted as stated in the edit summary “information for a work in progress". This is what I said in my Revision as of 16:28, 10 July 2005 and in this Revision as of 16:46, 10 July 2005 a few minutes later as part of that work in progress. My edit was then reworded by someone else here. In this same vein, see the intentional distortion still going on here inserted by Onefortyone in this article a few weeks ago.

As well, the David Bret November 28, 2001 book is gossip about Presley's relationship with Nick Adams, and Colonel Parker that stated here includes "Presley slept with his own mother, raped his wife, held wild sex and drugs parties and left a fan brain-damaged" without any proof of any kind provided. The author has no academic credentials, has been severely criticized repeatedly for lack of research and his Presley book was never subjected to peer review. Bret and his gossip book are not even remotely close to meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources requirements as established by a Wikipedia community vote and a Wikipedia:Peer Review at Abraham Lincoln. There are hundreds of books on Elvis Presley and Colonel Parker with major recognized works by American popular music historian Peter Guralnick (1,300 pages – 1994, 1999 with each volume winning the Ralph J. Gleason Music Book Award sponsored by Rolling Stone, BMI and New York University in the year in which each was published) and author Alanna Nash in 2003 (the Society of Professional Journalists' National Member of the Year). Nash's book has been lauded by The (London) Observer here as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written." (Here are numerous other reviews, including The New York Review of Books, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews etc.) None of these exhaustively researched books by highly reputable authors, that have multiple peer reviews, have ever made any such claim as to Presley being gay or of having a homosexual relationship with Nick Adams. Would any encyclopedia ignore these esteemed authors findings (and those of numerous others) and quote a gossip book by David Bret?

User:Onefortyone et al tries to make it appear as though the friendship between Presley and actor Nick Adams is some sort of suppressed secret revealed by David Bret's book. The fact is that their friendship, supported by Colonel Parker, is widely known and was reported on by the movie magazines of the day. Twenty years ago, Elaine Dundy wrote about Nick Adams and why Colonel Parker hired him in her 1985 book Elvis and Gladys. Adams is on the book index here and that information is included in the Nick Adams Wikipedia bio because she and her book were highly acclaimed and peer reviewed. In 1994, American popular music historian Peter Guralnick wrote what the critics call the definitive biography on Presley and he wrote about Presley's friendship with actor Dennis Hopper and his friendship with Hopper's roommate actor Nick Adams who is referred to twenty-two times in the book as seen here on the book index and here on the name search. As well, you can buy the Audio tape/CD of the September 26 interview by Jack Christal with both Nick Adams & Elvis Presley at several websites including here.

Onefortyone/Anon et al cites more than one source which does not exist. He fabricated and repeatedly inserted a quote from:

1. Judy Spreckels as noted above;
2. he fabricated that there was a book published by Dee Presley, going so far as to quote from this non-existent book asserting his quote was absolute proof that Presley was homosexual in support of the David Bret book claims;
3. he fabricated that there was an article by Dee Presley published in the National Enquirer and inserted the fabrication and its unacceptable source into the Elvis Presley article;
4. he then lied here at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1 stating: "It should also be taken into account that most parts of Nash's (Alanna Nash) book were written before Dee Presley published her recent accusations.";
5. he fabricated this assertion about Nick Adams' divorce
6. he fabricated a quote from a book by William J. Mann in the Nick Adams article then when User:Ted Wilkes caught him, he admitted here that what he wrote in the article was in fact a complete fabrication.
7. Once the Elvis Presley and Nick Adams articles were Page Protected, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al switched to using the Talk pages as his platform because these too appear in Google and Yahoo etc. searches. He lied here that an article of 1957 mentioned in The Guardian here claims that Elvis and gay entertainer Liberace were boyfriends. And, he repeated the lie in his creation: "Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley" (since deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley
8. Even on this Workshop page, Onefortyone lied to the Arbitration Committee stating: "The fact is that Priscilla clearly states in her book that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and other women." (See: this)
9. Part and parcel of my statement above that a frequent tactic of Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al is to insert a fabrication and/or distortion then revert anyone who disagrees, demanding they prove him wrong such as this statement and repeated here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley in which he asserts that a book by Earl Greenwood said that "Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams."

In order to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia articles edited by Onefortyone, I and others have been forced into needless long hours of research. I went to the library and read Elvis and Me, Elvis and Gladys, and the Gavin Lambert gossip book on Natalie Wood. As such, and with the Earl Greenwood out-of-print book not in the local library, and one whose contents cannot be searched and has no index listed on Amazon.com, this time on 19 September 2005 I asked Onefortyone here on his Talk page to "please provide the direct quote from the book and the page number so I can verify your assertion. Thank you." This request was also posted here at Talk:Elvis Presley.

After waiting two weeks, User:DropDeadGorgias requested an answer from Onefortyone here on 4 October 2005. Then, on 8 October 2005 with still no reply from Onefortyone, User:Ted Wilkes repeated the request here. There is still no reply. - Ted Wilkes 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply by Onefortyone:

Just a few remarks, as it is too boring to reply to every statement by Ted Wilkes:

The denigration of Bret's book is significantly near to comments by hardbanned User:NightCrawler or User:JillandJack. See [27], [28]

Alanna Nash's book on Colonel Parker, favored by Wilkes, includes much gossip. Publisher's Weekly says, "Her narrative of Parker's bizarre life, from his childhood in Holland and illegal entry into the U.S. to his rise from carny to household name, reads more like fiction."

In his Elvis biography, the reputed biographer and Elvis expert, Peter Guralnick, calls Nick Adams a Hollywood hustler. See [29]. This supports a similar statement by Boze Hadleigh who, in his book, Hollywood Gays, says that the diminutive yet reputedly well-hung actor Nick Adams may have "hustled while looking for acting jobs in the 1950s." Guralnick also says that, in 1957, Nick Adams published a charming account of his friendship with Elvis.

The information about the divorce of Nick Adams was taken from a website on Carol Nugent:

Was married to actor Nick Adams,and Adams won custody of their children in an expensive divorce in which it was proved that she was having an affair with another man. In a bizarre twist, Adams was found dead on February 7,1968 and the death remains a mystery.

See [30]

As for the National Enquirer article, which summarizes the facts in Dee Presley's unpublished book, The Intimite Life and Death of Elvis Presley, I did some further research. The article was published in 1993. In it, Elvis's stepmother, Dee Stanley, indeed confirms that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams. She also claims that he had a sexual relationship with his mother, which had resulted in Gladys drinking herself to death, and that Vernon had known about this. She further says that Elvis had raped Priscilla, his wife, upon learning that she was leaving him for good, ostensibly to prove that he was still a man, and that he had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer. Finally, Dee Presley reveals how Elvis had coerced a teenage fan into a three-day orgy, and fed her an entire bottle of Hycodan (a powerful codeine-based cough syrup) on which she had overdosed.

Earl Greenwood, in his book The Boy who would be King (1990), clearly says that Nick Adams was Elvis's "persistent friend." According to the author, they "shared a mutual enjoyment of prescription drugs," and "Nick became a regular at whatever house Elvis was renting." "Elvis still hated sleeping alone, and he grew close enough to Nick to ask him to stay over on nights he was feeling particularly blue but not up to a sexual confrontation with a woman." When he heard that his friend had died, "Elvis's immediate reaction was to sit on the steps, frozen and mute, then his eyes welled with tears and his body shook, as he rocked himself back and forth, arms clutching his sides. Elvis was devastated and suffered through it for days. He sequestered himself upstairs and could be heard crying through the closed door. ... Elvis talked about how close they had been, particularly after a couple of foursomes, and admitted he had 'spurned' Nick's friendship later, saying he had needed 'room to breathe,' because Nick had wanted 'too much, ya know?'..." The author adds that "some pointed comments were made about the two of them years later by a disgruntled hand Elvis just fired..." "Regardless of any intimacies, Nick didn't kill himself over Elvis - it turned out he had a lot of demons haunting him. But Elvis beat himself over Nick's death for a long time." (See pp. 284-286)

In another chapter of the same book, there are some further remarks about the fact that Colonel Parker had told young Elvis "he needed to sharpen his stage presence and develop an image, and to play up his sexuality and make both men and women in the audience want him. ... The idea that he could control men ... had never occurred to him, until Parker brought it up. Not by sleeping with them but by daring them not to notice his sexual smolder. And he found the thought of being wanted by a man oddly erotic, and it made him feel powerful and superior." (See p. 165) Onefortyone 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional reply by Ted Wilkes

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. What the book states, is that Presley had many women and recounts all the Hollywood actresses he bedded. However, this matter is out of control, and my own large reply only makes it worse. As such, I will post it to the Talk page if anyone is interested. With Onefortyone now going to User talk:KeithD to attack him and to paste all his massive distortions again on KeithD's Talk page and on User talk:DropDeadGorgias plus in the Nick Adams article plus on the Talk:Nick Adams and on Talk:Elvis Presley. Consistent with repeating key words and allegations and/or fabrications over and over, these massive detailed edits about the Greenwood Book and the National Enquirer have now been posted to SIX different Wikipedia pages TODAY by Onefortyone which of course serves Google and Yahoo etc. searches. He has involved more than half a dozen Wikipedians in his edit wars and Wikipedia pages contain more than 200,000 words on this matter with the information and key words for Google searches repeated on dozens of pages, hundreds of times. As an example, at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive1 User:Onefortyone inserted the words Dee Presley: 14 times, Homosexual/Gay: 28 times, David Bret: 9 times. This of course triggered responses in the Edit war he caused which resulted in those key words being repeated by others. If you check the Presley Talk pages, you will see that after one is archived, Onefortyone will repeat prior assertions on the new talk pages to ensure the key words come up on Google. See Talk:Elvis Presley/archive2 where Onefortyone reinserted Dee Presley again, this time more than twenty times and the word Homosexual/Gay comes up 67 times. And on it goes. Note too that these large edits seeded with key words were also pasted to other Wikipedia User talk pages.

In one breath Onefortyone says their is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress anything negative about Elvis Presley but to support his argument he was gay turns around and says there are many many sources to prove this. Go figure. I and others have done their best to deal with this person and their agenda so will leave it up to the Arbitration Committee to deal with. The very nature of Wikipedia editing and its growth makes it an easy target for self-promoters and those paid to promote certain people, books, or other commercial products and causes who would never get their gossip or propaganda into an Encyclopedia. Unfortunately the onus is on all of us to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a major Internet disseminator for these sort of promoters. - Ted Wilkes 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional reply by Onefortyone

Thank you very much, Ted Wilkes. Now I have caught you in total misinformation. You said in your statement that I have cited a passage out of context and distorted realities. This is not true. On page 285, which only deals with the death of Elvis's friend Nick Adams, the author clearly says, that "Elvis's immediate reaction was to sit on the steps, frozen and mute..." "Elvis was devastated and suffered through it for days. He sequestered himself upstairs and could be heard crying through the closed door. ... He sat in a daze, unable to come to grips with Nick's death." I would encourage everybody to have a look at this page of the book. Earl Greenwood also says that Nick wanted "too much" and that they had "intimacies". 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. Onefortyone 08:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Spamdexing and Vandalism by Onefortyone|ANON 80.141

I debated long and hard about posting this because, in my opinion, putting it here will trigger a mass of edits with continued keyword stuffing by Onefortyone that will wind up all over the Internet as an invitation to others being paid to do Spamdexing 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 by User: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 found this vandalism on the Church of Ireland article and this, too. It was reverted but ANON 80.141. vandalized the page again here and it was reverted again by 13:53, 20 June 2005 User:Splash (rv to last by Jez) here

And, here is childish vandalism by ANON 80.141.

ANON 80.141. also vandalizes the page of Wikipedia Administrator RickK three times in a row: The first time here and then the second one here and the third one here. ANON 80.141. was then warned by User:Plato for personal attacks here . Based on the comment, it appears ANON 80.141. might have had run-ins with Wikipedia 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 explained here in the Wikipedia Spamdexing 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 article here and inserted a link to TrustRank from which he then created the TrustRank article here. ANON 80.141 is actually laughing at the system combating keyword spamming that he has been able to beat because Google or Yahoo 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 on Talk: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 said this. The next day she then said this and then after eight days of fending off ANON 80.141, by then she knows what is happening and spells it out here.

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, when seeded 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 Presley here 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 asked User:JCarriker for Mediation but was told to sign in. At 03:10, 24 July 2005 Angela referred to CheckUser here 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, look here at the seeding on the page of User: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 Wilkes 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply by Onefortyone

User:Ted Wilkes again accuses me of spamdexing and childish vandalism, as he already did on the Evidence page. This is a personal attack. I can only repeat myself: I never visited and vandalized the Church of Ireland, the Belgium and the User 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 on TrustRank 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 what User: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 [31]. 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. Onefortyone 11:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: