User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 6

Onefortyone

Hello. There is some question as to whether user Onefortyone has violated his probation by posting content with questionable sources to Elvis Presley. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this situation (since you're listed as being associated with this action) and was hoping you could clear up --Kramer 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)the current problem as well.

Thanks!

--Pcj 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you with this matter again. As you are one of my mentors, perhaps you can explain to me why administrator Jkelly has banned me from the Elvis Presley page for two months (see [1]), although I have frequently cited my sources. Meanwhile, editor Lochdale continues to delete my contributions (see [2], [3], [4]), etc etc. He even deleted a passage rewritten by administrator Hoary. He has also repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article (see [5], [6], [7]) and is constantly denigrating the many sources I am citing, but he is not yet banned. I think this is not acceptable. Onefortyone 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Significantly, administrator Jkelly, wo banned me from the article, was involved in the controversial discussion between me, User:Lochdale and a few other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [8], [9]) taking sides with my opponent in the edit war. For instance, Jkelly's statement here calls the false claims by user Lochdale a "good edit". See also my replies here and here which prove that Lochdale has added false information to the talk page. Administrator Jkelly even deleted a critical paragraph I had written and which was well sourced from the Elvis Presley article. See [10]. Therefore, I do not think that Jkelly is the right administrator to ban me for two months from the Elvis article. May I ask you for advice concerning this matter. Thank you. Onefortyone 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User Lochdale has included the following sentence in the Elvis article: "However, Adams is not noted as being a particularly close friend of Presley in either of Peter Guralnik's lengthy works on Elvis or in any of the books written by Presley's former bodyguards." See [11]. As I have already written on the talk page, reputable Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick, in his book Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick [Adams] and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis

enjoyed being back in Hollywood. It was good running around with Nick again - there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day. On the weekend Nick called up his friend Russ Tamblyn, who had a small, one-bedroom beach house on the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Topanga Canyon, and asked if he could bring his friend Elvis over. Tamblyn, who at twenty-two had been in the business from early childhood on, both as an actor and as a dancer, and who saw Nick as something of a hustler, said sure, come on out.

In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Guralnick writes: "Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time." So it is quite clear that Elvis spent most of his time with Nick Adams. Interestingly, on p.347-348 of his book, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that June Juanico didn't doubt that Elvis loved her, but "she didn't know if she could ever get him back. Elvis told her he had just heard from Nick and that Nick was coming to town tomorrow or the next day. He started telling her all about Nick and Nick's friends and Jimmy Dean, but she didn't want to hear." This statement certainly proves that June was jealous of Elvis's friendship with Nick Adams. Guralnick even cites Nick Adams's "charming account of his friendship with Elvis" which was published in May 1957. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [12], [13],[14].

Administrator Hoary has now deleted the "Nick Adams stuff" from the Elvis article. See [15]. He has also deleted well sourced material from another section of the article which is backed up by several independent university studies. See [16]. It's unbelievable! Onefortyone 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few additional words about User:Lochdale who has also contributed under the IPs 83.71.77.27 and 63.85.72.242. To my mind, this user identity seems to have only been created in order to remove my contributions (see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] etc. etc.) or to attack and debase me and my edits on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]). If you look at the contribution history of this user (see [71]), he is frequently "dropping in" and either involved in deleting my contributions or constantly repeating the same accusations over and over again, namely, claiming that my sources are not reliable, that my quotations are out of context, that over 2000 books on Elvis do not mention what I have written (how should he know this, as he has not yet quoted from a single book on Elvis), etc. etc., though I have cited dozens of independent books and articles, among them publications by reputable Elvis biographers and university studies, in order to support my edits. This is very similar to the strategies my old opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes used in the past. I recommend that some administrators should keep a watchful eye on the activities of this user. Onefortyone 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the pertinence of his comment on my talk page you listed above. It seems to indicate he'd be willing to be accomodating if the discussion were more reasonable. It also takes (at least) two to tango, and in this case, to edit war. --Pcj 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Being called a vandal who is hijacking the Elvis article by a fringe agenda is certainly a personal attack, isn't it? As for the edit war, I am sure you would have enthusiastically applauded if another user had frequently deleted your well-sourced contributions. Onefortyone 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Intervention regarding Sarner

I am not sure where the appropriate place is to post this concern and request for help. user:sarner is now taking his attacks and harassment to my talk page where he has posted what I believe to be a baseless warning that I have engaged in vandalism. I believe these attacks are just a continuation of his comments from the Bowlby page and attached talk page. I would like the warning on my talk page removed and sarner made to stop bothering me. Thank you. DPeterson 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I demur that any of the above charges are true. In fact, the actions of DPeterson have been harassing me and others for some time, including recharacterizing your "soft-ban" of me on the Barrett page as saying I have been banned on the Bowlby page. Now he has put up a article (Advocates for Children in Therapy), claiming that it is a "fringe group", and that I am a "leader" of that group, and more, all without the slightest reference to a reliable source. I challenged that and other so-called "facts" with a request for citation, and he comes on to my talk page with a claim that I am vandalizing the page! You have set a chain of events into motion with your "soft-ban" of me. I am not asking that you necessarily reverse yourself on that matter, but would you please either set me right or set DPeterson right about the various issues with respect to vandalism. Right now, to me, DPeterson's actions resemble that of a schoolyard bully thinking that the playground monitors would approve of his actions. Thank you. Larry Sarner 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The website for Sarner's group, ACT, has all the evidence he could want. For example, his note above says I call him "a "leader" of that group, and more, all without the slightest reference to a source." His own website states, "A New Book by ACT Authors!

Jean Mercer, PhD Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors, ACT Professor of Psychology, Richard Stockton College (Pomona, New Jersey) President, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health

Larry Sarner, BS, BA Administrative Director, ACT Executive Director, Citizens for Science in Medicine From: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/library/ATOT.html

DPeterson 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabalist...

Hi Nicholas, I recently listed my interest in assisting the Medcab and as such signed on with the case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-16 Bet HaShitta / Beit Hashita. I can happily report this was resolved as a success almost immediately (I would love to state I played a integral part in this resolution but I fear my role was purely incidental) Nevertheless, I would be happy to help you in this or your newer project. Just let me know, - Glen 05:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone

Hi. Can I ask if you've read Talk:Elvis Presley? Some further reading is at User talk:Hoary. As I elabourated at User talk:Onefortyone; the ArbCom remedy to the problems with Onefortyone's editing explicitly cites WP:NOR, and Onefortyone's editing to at Elvis Presley is largely devoted to drawing together quotes from various sources (ex) to create a new narrative (ex). There was not a specific instance in the last couple of days to point to as a diff. I've been considering this for at least the last two months -- I raised concerns with Onefortyone on June 6 (Onefortyone's previous ban from that article expired on April 16), and brought it up with User:Hoary, who is much more active in caretaking that page than I am, on the 17th. I wouldn't have invoked the remedy without Hoary's agreement that it was necessary. It was Hoary's agreement that dictated the timing of the invocation, not any particular edit of Onefortyone's. Hoary's message indicated that there was further question about reliable sourcing and if that is the largest concern, Hoary would be the better one to address it.

Frankly, I think that the best course of action for Onefortyone would be to recognise a tendency to edit disruptively and take up a regimen of either entirely avoiding those articles which are most likely to devolve into fights over claims of incest and homosexuality, or at least adopt a restriction to only make suggestions on Talk pages. I suggest that if the case goes back to arbitration again (as was suggested) that the result is unlikely to be preferable to a two-month ban from editing the article. I'd further suggest that Onefortyone needs to stop thinking of the issue as being a conflict between fans and non-fans, and instead aim for harmonious, consensus editing. There should be some awareness by now that there is a problem, and the best way to overcome it would be to trust other editors when they point out that it exists. Jkelly 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly prodded me to respond here. My paying job beckons, but I hope to answer you within a few hours. -- Hoary 05:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, that you, administrator Hoary, and administrator Jkelly, although you are both involved in the current discussion on the Talk:Elvis Presley page and in deleting my contributions from the Elvis Presley article (see, for instance, [72], [73], [74]), have been cooperating in getting me banned from the Elvis page (see [75], [76]). This is no more a neutral point of view. Onefortyone 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some additions. Administrator Hoary is still deleting passages I have written from the Elvis article (see [77], [78]). Furthermore, as important sources such as Peter Guralnick's Elvis biography prove that Elvis spent much time with his best friend Nick Adams (see [79]), I politely asked Hoary to reinclude the "Nick Adams stuff" (as he called it) which he had removed. He replied, "No I'm not going to reinclude it. Incidentally, Adams is already mentioned in the article in the state in which I viewed it mere seconds ago." See [80]. It should be noted that Adams's close friendship with Elvis is not mentioned in the article. It should have gotten more space as it is an important part of the singer's life. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [81], [82],[83]. By the way, I wonder whether it is O.K. that this biased administrator is jointly responsible for getting me banned from the Elvis article. Onefortyone 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly has referred to me as "the admin who asked me to invoke this remedy"; I'd rephrase that as the admin who took up his month-old offer to invoke it. Still, yes, I'm responsible.

We read: Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

That seems to have had an effect. Since that time, Onefortyone has given an impression of being scrupulous in providing sources for his assertions, or more often quotations. Unlike Onefortyone, I don't have (or want) a library about Presley, pop culture, celeb gossip, or queer studies (in which subjects my level of interest ranges from little to zero). I am therefore unable to check the accuracy of most of these citations. Very occasionally, I can check them without actually spending money in order to do so. An example is to be found near the end of this section: Onefortyone accurately but misleadingly quotes what he says was written by "The Guardian (certainly a reliable source)." This suggests a propensity to use precisely specified sources in a deceptive fashion.

Onefortyone has been disrupting Talk:Elvis Presley with his announcements of discoveries of smidgens of evidence that Presley was a very special playmate of Nick Adams, etc:

• The section "Jonathan Rhys Meyers believes Elvis was gay", in which he first brings up the kind of witless comment an actor (or anyone else) might make after one or two pints too many -- the kind of thing that (a) says nothing about Presley and nothing complementary about the speaker, and (b) seems likely to bring inane responses. He follows this up with "Interestingly, Elvis's sexual ambivalence has been the subject of many peer-reviewed studies" (same section), which at first looks like an attempt to back up Meyers' comments with the gravitas of university presses, but might be better rephrased as "Irrelevantly, Presley's perceived sexual ambivalence has been mentioned in many academic works." Respectability by association, or something.
• The (blessedly short) section "Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota", which announces that On the Talk:Nick Adams page there is a recent statement by Bill Dakota which may be of much interest to Elvis fans. It proves that both Elvis and his friend Nick Adams were bisexual (my underlining); where the "statement" is a long screed by somebody purporting to be the editor of Hollywood Star and Gayboy; even if the writer really is William Kern ("Bill Dakota"), its credibility is minimalized by the fact that he's been in the Z-grade magazine business and by his assertion (within his "statement") that 2/3rds of the Hollywood actors TODAY have had sex with another man at one time or another (emphasis in the original), which, if true, would mean either (i) that everything we know about the rate of incidence of homosexuality is wrong, or (ii) Hollywood actors are mightily atypical of men in general. Even if the author is Kern, this is "original research" (if not mere hogwash), and Onefortyone's advertising of in on the Presley talk page looks like incitement to break WP:NOR.

Onefortyone's description of contributors to the article other than himself as either "vandals" or "fanatic fans" also seems uncharitable to the point of disruptiveness. However, there's some truth in it: a number of people have attempted to contribute to this wretched article (oodles of material on "relationships", not a mention of "Blue Suede Shoes"!) but have been driven off by the vigor with which tittle-tattle is reinserted into the article.

Here, Onefortyone politely turns down the suggestion of mediation -- and thereby becomes personally responsible for rejecting it, as both the other named parties accepted the idea -- with the claim that all will be well If every contributor cites his/her sources and sticks close to the facts written in published books, articles, etc.; but this raises questions such as what the "facts" are.

For most would-be contributors, facts would be the facts that Presley did this or that; to Onefortyone, they include the fact that some embittered ex-hanger-on claimed that Presley did this or that. Thus here (one of his most recent edits to the article) Onefortyone reintroduces a section on "Male friendships": very little of this implies anything other than that Presley had the typical heterosexual male's fondness for spending lots of (asexual) time with his male buddies but it ends with the following nugget: Natalie Wood "was not the only one to think Elvis and the guys might be homosexual. . . . Tongues wagged that Elvis and Adams were getting it on." It's a well-sourced quotation (from an article in Playboy), but however well sourced it may be, an assertion that this or that factoid was "wagged" by unspecified "tongues" is most unlikely to be encyclopedic; and Onefortyone's chronic enthusiasm for reintroducing it -- please search for "wagged" within this old talk archive (16 Nov – 30 Dec '05; within a month of the closing of his RfAr), this one (7 Mar '06, shortly before he was banned from editing the Presley article for one month) and the current talk page -- and his disregard for observations that mere gossip such as this is not encyclopedic have become exceedingly tiresome. -- Hoary 11:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that I have been scrupulous in providing sources for my assertions, and I have not yet learned which specific edit violated my probation. Remember that administrator Jkelly banned me for two months without warning. I do not think that I have disrupted the Elvis article "by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research", as all my contributions to the article are well sourced. I have quoted several independent sources, among them reputable Elvis biographies and university studies. Onefortyone 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, I don't quite know what to do at this point. Would you like me to argue with Onefortyone on your talk page? I'm rather tired of arguing with Onefortyone about anything, anywhere, but if you want me to I shall rise (or sink) to the occasion. Incidentally, when I wrote that last, long message (in sickly green, a color you are of course welcome to change), I hadn't any Presley books at my disposal; I have now borrowed two large books on him from the library. Once I've eliminated notes, indexes, etc., there's still a total of well over a thousand pages. If the indexes are to be trusted, Nick Adams (apparently regarded by Onefortyone as of great importance to Presley) gets well under 1% of this. -- Hoary 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of personalities claiming to have had a friendship with Elvis. In comparison, Nick Adams gets lot of space in Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis. For instance, relating to the time when their close friendship began, the author writes (p.339-340),

"Nick didn't have anything better to do, so he was going to come to Tupelo ... Elvis was looking forward to showing him Memphis for the first time. They flew into Memphis on Saturday, September 22, and went out to the fair briefly that night. On Monday they visited Humes, where Elvis introduced Nick to his old homeroom teacher, Miss Scrivener... They visited the Tiplers at Crown Electric, too, and Nick put his feet up on Mr. Tipler's desk while Elvis explained, said his former employer, "how he had his money arranged so he wouldn't get it all at one time." They even went by Dixie's house one afternoon, and she told Elvis she was getting married, and he congratulated her and wished her well. On Wednesday they left for Tupelo around noon." etc.

On page 343, Guralnick adds:

"Elvis and Nick had returned to Hollywood by the weekend..."

Does this sound as if Guralnick only notes "that they were friends but nothing more", as Lochdale has falsely claimed? Of course not! Further, I have not yet seen a comment by an administrator concerning the fabricated material user Lochdale included in the article, for instance, his false claim that Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley never lived with the star at Graceland (see [84]). It is a historical fact that Vernon Presley, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), professor Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him." See also the account in Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys (2004), where the author relates (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." This was too much for Elvis who still loved his mother Gladys. One afternoon, "a van arrived ... and all Dee's household's goods, clothes, 'improvements,' and her own menagerie of pets, were loaded on ... while Vernon, Dee and her three children went by car to a nearby house on Hermitage until they finally settled into a house on Dolan Drive which ran alongside Elvis's estate." For some websites dealing with Dee Presley, see [85], [86], [87], [88]. However, these seem to be fan sites which may not be reliable enough. Onefortyone 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale (and me)

Nicholas, thank you for your hard work. I have so far only skimread what you have written to Onefortyone, and also the RfAr. Perhaps the closer reading of the latter that I do intend to give it will explain what you mean by "fixatedly editing" (the skimreading does not). Meanwhile, I appreciate the need to be, and to appear to be, evenhanded in settling (or at least imposing moritoria on) affairs such as this, and I'll also say that I have not been happy with all of Lochdale's edits -- but I'd also point out that:

• I too may have been fixatedly editing this article (depending on what's meant by fixated), I too have been perceived as part of the problem rather than the solution (search for "Hoary" within "New plan for peace", and thus I too might better be given a vacation for a couple of months.
• Lochdale isn't (and I'm not) under probation.

You might consider giving some sort of warning to Lochdale (and me) before temporarily banning him/her (and me).

[Thinks . . . yes, being given a vacation from that article might give me an opportunity to learn to appreciate the music -- if perhaps not the acting -- of Elvis Presley.]

So go ahead, step on some suede shoes. -- Hoary 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I hadn't noticed anything really problematic about User:Lochdale (and User:Hoary is not in any way part of the problem), but, then again, User talk:Jkelly doesn't have any complaints from other editors about Lochdale, so I haven't been looking closely at their edits. I don't see anything about Lochdale at the ArbCom link you provided, so the matter may be entirely academic if that user is not under probation. If there is an editor other than User:Onefortyone who holds that Lochdale's editing has been problematic, an RfC would be the first step. Jkelly 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now read the arbitration case, and now tentatively understand that by "fixatedly editing" you mean editing exclusively on a single issue and thus giving rise to the suspicion that the editor is at WP much less to help create an encyclopedia than to push a particular PoV. (I'd comment that such users are numerous, often creating buddy articles or vanity articles: dubiously pushing the significance or something or somebody rather than any PoV about it.) His/her (I'll arbitrarily settle on him for convenience's sake) list of contributions clearly shows that Lochdale has been almost exclusively concerned with Presley and the resulting disputes. And he could imaginably be accused of PoV pushing, IFF it's PoV to hold that no solid evidence exists to claim that Presley had bisexual or incestuous relations. However, WP seems to hold that a viewpoint reflecting (near-) consensus opinion is not "PoV". You have been right to point out that Onefortyone has not been less civil than others; Lochdale and I perhaps deserve some degree of criticism here. (My own view is that one contributor not so far mentioned here has been far and away the least civil.) However, I don't equate Onefortyone and Lochdale. Perhaps Lochdale needs (perhaps I need) an amicable warning, but surely not a ban. -- Hoary 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I posted something nearly identical (see below) in User Hoary's Talk Page. I very much appreciate User Hoary's defense/explanation of my actions. I would like to add though that my actions were my own and User Hoary should not suffer for my errors. That said, I'd like to flesh out my involvement here on Wikipedia a little more. There are two main reasons I mostly edit the Presley: i) I know a little about Presley after visiting Graceland and then reading the two books by Peter Guralnik and, ii) because the article has been overtly hijacked by one user with a clear agenda. I think this clearly goes to the credibility of Wikipedia. If articles can be routinely hijacked and manipulated just becuase a user can find a "source" no matter how questionable, then Wikipedia's long term viability as a reliable source is in jerpard. Indeed, this notion was rececntly saterized in the Onion magazine.

The problem with User Onefortyone's edits is the circular logic he uses to justify his post. This is particularly easy with a character like Presley who was pretty much the catalyst for the celebrity schlock industry. For example, Presley was friendly with Nick Adams. Nick Adams may have been gay or bi-sexual. Ergo, Presley is gay. The user in question will use a reputable source (Guralnik) to tie Presley and Adams together as friends. He will then use a questionable or salacious source to suggest that Adams was gay. He will then use this to justify massive insertions backed up by footnotes to low-end sources (National Enquirer, books written long after Presley's death by people with a tangental connection to Presley). It's extremely hard to discuss these issues with a user who resorts to this form of editing. In essence, it's an abuse of the rules of Wikipedia and I believe User Onefortyone is well aware of this. When an unpublished manuscript forms the basis for a full paragraph in an article then you know something is up. This is particulary bothersome when so much has been written about Presley. So the user keeps pushing the agenda as far as possible then settling for one inch more than he had before. This signifcantly colours and taints the article. It's gone on for more than 14 archived pages! If that isn't an agenda then I don't know what is. As I said, it makes it next to impossible to remain civil. I hope that you would consider this when you consider mine and other user's edits.

I also have other interests mostly relating to Irish themes though I am loathe to go near the Roy Keane page! I am happy, however, to get involved in more articles.

(My orginal note on User Hoary's talk page is in brackets below:

Whilst I appreciate your comments I do take a little umbrage at the notion that my account was created solely to edit the Presley page. To be sure I am a novice user so that may offer some explanation for my clumsy editing methodologies. However, I would ask you to consider that I tended only to edit those claims that had no real basis in reality. Put another way, I did not edit sections dealing with Presley's philandering or his obvious drug abuse/addiction. I would further note that the Presley page differs extensively from other biographies on rock musicians given the number of quotes and secondary sources attributable to the article. This suggests that the article has basically been hijacked. I do not believe any of my comment have been so egregious that they are deserving of a ban. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated particularly as to how I can best conduct myself on a going forward basis)--Lochdale 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of quotes and secondary sources would normally underline the quality of the article, as the quotes show that many contributions are well sourced. Onefortyone 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not when such 'proper sources' are used in a manipulative manner or are otherwise utilized to push a particular agenda. --Lochdale 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your statement, Nicholas. You are right that the best thing for me to do on Wikipedia is to take a step back. It's a good idea to take a break, as I have wasted too much time in edit wars. However, there is still the problem that User:Lochdale repeatedly included false information in the Elvis article. This is not acceptable. Interestingly, another new user has "dropped in" who falsely claims on Talk:Patricia Bosworth to have found "a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth article" I started some weeks ago. Significantly, this new user is only interested in "errors" allegedly produced by Onefortyone in the Patricia Bosworth and the Elvis Presley articles. What a coincidence! It seems as if this user intends to start a new edit war concerning the "Allegations of racism" section of the Elvis article. See [89]. I would recommend to have a watchful eye on both Lochdale and User:Bookmind alias IP 207.67.145.214. There is something going on that looks suspicious to me. Could it be that my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes, who is blocked for one year, has reappeared? Onefortyone 01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User Onefortyone I can assure you that there is no connection between me and the recent discussion regarding allegations of racism. I am, however, reading some of Bertrand's works and it appears that they are misconstured in the current article. I will work with other editors to correct this. Lastly, a quick read of your Talk Page shows that you have a history of calling editors who disagree with you 'sockpuppets' or the like. Please don't, it's insulting and brings down the tone of any article you are involved with.--Lochdale 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you mention that User:Ted Wilkes has indeed created at least two different sockpuppets in order to push his agenda and to delete my contributions (see [90] and [91])? Of course not. Another alias of Ted Wilkes, user DW, created many more sockpuppets in the past, reappearing time and again after being blocked (see [92]). Interestingly, one of these sockpuppets was Nightcrawler, a name borrowed from a popular comic book superhero (see [93]). Significantly, you are also interested in comics, Lochdale, as, apart from deleting material from the Elvis Presley article, you are also contributing to Thor (Marvel Comics) (and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)) which deals with another fictional superhero. What a coincidence! Onefortyone 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Board candidate questions

Hi Nicholas, I'm glad to see you're running for the current board elections. I have some questions that I think would be good to know - please answer (or ignore) them as you see fit. Thanks. Cormaggio ^@ 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cormaggio: Thank you for your pertinent, and very interesting, set of questions; below, please find my answers, which I hope might provide a clearer profile of myself as a Board candidate to you. If there are any points in what I have written that you feel could benefit from further clarification, or should you have any further questions for me, please do not hesitate to let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1. What do you do in real life^TM?

   Real life? You mean that actually exists? :)

   Joking aside, I do all sorts of things. In terms of my career, my work is mainly related to IT; I work as a freelance project manager and management consultant, mainly in solving management problems relating to systems development and team management. I also do the odd spot of systems development myself, as I actually very much enjoy coding, and occasionally I also do systems analysis work. I am in the process of starting a new management consultancy business at present with a colleague of mine. Professional work aside, I am a classical pianist and harpsichordist; I also compose the odd piece of music as a matter of interest. Academically, I am a Computing student, and will be studying Computing with Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sussex in this coming academic year.

2. What personal/professional experience would you bring to the board, if elected?

   A large proportion of my professional work is basically acting as an intermediary between what would be ideal in running projects, and what is actually practical - and, probably most importantly, working out methods of achieving the best possible outcome despite resource constraints and the inevitable calamities that happen along the way. The other crucial part of it is dealing with people; managing strengths and weaknesses, sorting out disputes, providing a gentle hand of assistance where necessary, and also occasionally carrying out the somewhat less gentle task of either rehabilitating or removing team members who are not pulling their weight.

   A lot of what I have learned in project management applies, I think, very well to a larger focus of a project-focused organisation like Wikimedia as well - my experience in dealing with variables affecting a project, and using them to produce solutions, is the essence of what I would like to achieve as a Wikimedia board member. It is these elements, I think, that the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole would benefit from improvement in, and it is this expertise I would, to the best of my abilities, bring to the Board.

3. What do you see as the role of a board member?

   In a volunteer-dependent organisation such as the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe the duties of a board member are three-fold: 1) to provide an interface to the outside corporate world for the volunteer communities, and the handling of organisational issues, enabling Wikimedia projects to operate and ensure its operational needs are met; 2) to tabulate, analyse and remedy issues affecting the communities of Wikimedia projects, by gathering, developing and implementing solutions to those issues; and finally, 3) act as a guardian of the Foundations's focus and interests, and provide strategic leadership to the volunteer projects, taking responsibility for the Foundation's activities.

4. Do you have any personal aspirations you would like to pursue through a tenure on the board?

   It has always been my primary mission in life to make a difference wherever I can in the world, and I believe the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that - by providing free, comprehensive information on a diverse range of subjects to the world. Thus, I feel that by assisting the Foundation as a Board member, I shall be able to work towards the goal of summarising the world's information into an excellent series of educational resources, for both those privileged enough to have Internet access and also in print form for those who do not, in developing countries. My aspiration is, thus, to contribute my management expertise to the Foundation, participating in ensuring its long-term success and satisfaction of goals; and at a finer degree of working focus, to make a difference to the Foundation projects and those who contribute to them through application of what I know.

Thanks for answering. Cormaggio ^@ 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, most (if not all) candidates have provided their age. Do you plan to, or do you feel uncomfortable doing so, and if so, why? Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to providing my age at all; if I omitted it from my candidate information and it is general practice to provide it, my omission was merely an oversight, for which I apologise. I am 18 years old, and will add this to my entry on Meta. Thank you for letting me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election question

In your candidate statement you point out that there have been many disputes over policy and process recently, and that these represent a challenge to Wikipedia. What solutions do you propose to solve these problems? I'm not looking for a list of new edicts, just a general sense of the direction in which you would take us. Thanks. Cynical 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cynical: Thank you for your question, and I'm sorry for the slight delay in responding to you. I think the best way of answering this very pertinent point would be to describe the overall methodology I would hope to implement, as I think all the major problems that have started to show up relating to community affairs probably fall roughly under the same set of methods necessary for a resolution, which I will outline below:

Firstly, and probably foremost, liason with the community by the Wikimedia Foundation has been in my opinion generally quite poor with regard to transparency of decision-making and the involvement of the Wikipedia community in decision-making activities. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy (and nor should it be, really, since the goal is after all to create an encyclopaedia) but the volunteer editors are nonetheless stakeholders in the project - and, just as is practiced in business projects, thorough consultation with all stakeholder groups is vital to the success of organisational management.

To date, we have seen controversial policy implementation brought in by fiat without prior direct consultation (q.v. WP:CSD T1 relating to the userbox affair, WP:OFFICE, and "oversight" privileges) which has created undue animosity from both those areas of the community opposing the decision, and external critical entities who disapprove of unilateral enaction of controversial changes (such as Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review, which has the effect of harming the reputation of our project through the characterisation by these organisations of Wikipedia as a dictatorship). We thus have a whole plethora of issues that would be remedied by involving the community more thoroughly in decision-making - perhaps via some sort of policy development system. It could be called Wikipedia:Proposed policy changes, whereby the Board posts the proposed changes and users discuss, but not vote, on the various changes.

This would hopefully in some cases highlight the issues that would make the proposed change problematic, and indeed may well serve to generate alternative ideas on better ways of solving the issue. It would, in addition, mean that resoundingly unpopular changes could be easily detected prior to implementation, and would theoretically also permit the Board a greater deal of latitude for proposing policies versus simply enacting them - essential for large-scale problem solving on a project of this magnitude.

Secondarily, there is a lack of direct analysis of indepth issues relating to particular subject areas on Wikipedia; the finer issues relating to article content in specific groups, such as whether particular article subjects are noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, appear to be overlooked creating bizarre incongruities between different WikiProjects' decisions, and where authority direction would be advantageous it is avoided (q.v. the "fair use" images debates, and also the Kelly Martin RfC fiasco). This also links in with issues over authority being held by a single "Oracle" without sufficient delegation to deal with an organisational structure that has outgrown its initial size - delegation is an essential part of procedural agility within any organisation, and it is this that needs implementation. I propose the creation of Focus Groups that deal with specific issues on Wikimedia projects, comprised of editors with expertise in the particular areas, which are given some level of control over the enaction of changes in each area (semi-demi-gods, I suppose). As well as the increase of delegation within the Wikimedia organisational structure, I would also advise the Board taking a more proactive stance on solving issues with the community, whilst incorporating the elements of consultation I described above.

Thirdly, more attention needs to be paid towards the reduction of conflict on Wikipedia. The arbcom solves disputes, but doesn't in my opinion reduce conflict overall, looking at arbitration from a wider perspective - the function of the Arbcom has become more punitive rather than curative. We have an overloaded mediation system; both the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal are overburdened and are short-staffed. If we are going to have a project that will survive into the future - which I sincerely hope we shall - we will have to put better measures in place to keep "editing temperature" as low as possible, so that ordinary users can edit without fear of running into some massive dispute in so doing, and the Board will have to, again, be more proactive in remedying these issues. Proper care and attention to the psychological impact of Wikimedia projects (specifically the English Wikipedia) will be vital to ensuring the continued viability of the open editing environment, and these issues encompass a broad spectrum of subjects: everything from the user interface, down to policy decisions, enforcing of decent standards of interaction on talk pages, etc.

This reply was rather lengthier than I intended, for which I am very sorry! I believe, however, it outlines well the sort of direction I intend to take Wikimedia. Should you have any further questions for me, please let me know. Thank you, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy changes by fiat & advertising

I'm kinda interested in one of your points, about policy changes by fiat; would you consider the Answer.com advertising deal to be such a policy change? For that matter, what do you think of advertising and Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored projects in general? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rhwawn: The Answers.com deal could loosely be described as an example of where a change has been applied by "fiat", although it was not in itself a policy decision within the direct domain of Wikipedia; rather, it was a decision arrived at in a different strata of operation without a direct link to the project upon which it was based, which ultimately is a microcosm of the problem regarding community consultation. I think, in my own personal view, that the whole Answers.com decision was handled very poorly indeed by the Foundation, which lead to a great deal more paranoia and unrest amongst the "no advertising" advocates than was at all appropriate in reality, caused simply due to a lack of consultation and information about the proposed licensing deal, especially with relation to the "1-Click Answers" toolbar. It really was "a storm in a teacup" as what was actually agreed upon was comparatively mild, but because of the way the decision was arrived at, as a foregone conclusion rather than a proposal; that made users panic, as a lack of information added to immediate decision making by superiors tends to immediately equate to conspiracy theorism, which helps nobody (least of all the project leader). The only real issues surrounding the Answers.com deal were in truth things like GFDL compliance of Answers.com mirrors using Wikipedia content, and after Jimbo Wales pointed that out to Answers.com, the issue was fixed expeditiously - demonstrative of the fact that if the whole thing had been decided openly, there would have been no paranoia.

With regard to my standpoint on advertising and sponsorship, I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia project, carrying advertising of any description; for one, Internet advertisements are intrinsically odious, and secondarily, there are always fears relating to factual resources that advertisements are representative of corporate content insertion into the project, causing undue allegations of Wikipedia's editorial integrity being compromised for commercial reasons that would be best avoided. Sponsorship is, however, another matter, in that the Wikimedia Foundation has costs that are necessary in order to run the project, and ultimately finance will have to come from somewhere in bulk: it strikes me the most sensible manner of gathering such finance is through sponsorship links in industry, and thus it is a necessary activity for a charitable organisation such as Wikimedia to carry out. However, I believe any sponsorship in which the project's endorsement or image will be conferred to the sponsoring organisation (such as the Answers.com Wikipedia Edition) must be discussed thoroughly with project stakeholders, which was not accomplished in the Answers.com deal and I would seek to ensure in the future that this would be carried out.

I hope this answers your question adequately; should you have any further questions, please do drop me a line. Thank you very much, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative consensus-based nature.

Question. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-05t10:39z

Reply from Kiumars

Hi Nicholas,

Re: Despite a number of warnings and explanations from other Wikipedians about the matter, you have persisted in posting pro-Iranian diatribes which are not relevant to the encyclopaedia project we are intending to create.

Aren’t talk/discussion pages the right place to discuss different points of views? Have I been wrong in thinking that way? Have I posted anything emotionally charged on any articles?

By the way, what pro-Iranian diatribes are you talking about? Show me one pro-Iranian diatribes posted by me and prove me wrong, but I think you really mean “objecting to anti-Iranian statements on the Wiki”, right?

Re: your actions are somewhat disruptive.

You find discussing a political / cultural / historical issue disruptive? Are you serious?

Re: editors who merely wish to use Wikipedia to espouse a particular point of view or advocate one side in a factual controversy do not assist us in creating an encyclopaedia.

Espousing a particular point of view is a bad thing? Are you telling me that scientists and politicians and researchers don’t have a particular point of view and do not follow those lines till they prove it to be right or proven to be wrong? You really think people jump from branch to branch all the time? I must admit I don’t understand what you are talking about and I don’t think you know what you are talking about either!

Again, Give me an example of when I have posted a pro-Iranian diatribes or have been one sided on any issues, On the other hand if you do not provide such proofs I will report you for abuse of the Admin position. Kiumars 11:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, What is your objection to my post and discussion with other users on the following page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Iran%2C_Shi%27a%2C_and_Middle_East_related_articles_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history

Please do not delete, discuss first! Kiumars 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kiumars: Thank you very much for replying to me; I apologise for the length of time it has taken for me to respond. However, I regret that you have rather misunderstood what I intended to convey to you in my message - that may well be my fault, as I perhaps did not make myself clear enough, but I believe you also have failed to understand the issues relating to Wikipedia policy.

In reference to your post here, where you make a series of rhetorical statements that Wikipedia discriminates against Iranians:

• "Guys, as you can see Wiki is a platform for anti-Iranian propagandas, Parisian Gulf is not Persian Gulf any more..."
• "... Did you also notice how “Misconceptions about Iran” article was conveniently deleted in the middle of America’s propaganda against Iran ..."

You ask what my objection is to your post there - the answer to that should be fairly obvious; it is patently false conspiracy theorism to presume that Wikipedia is "a platform for anti-Iranian propaganda", which is an adversarial tone to take in discussion calculated to cause nothing but controversy. That is not, I feel, a post that could be made in the spirit of reasonable comment; although you may not wish to class such diatribe as being pro-Iranian, and would rather prefer to describe it as "objecting to anti-Iranian statements on the wiki", there is a difference between the latter (a justifiable grievance) and the former (mere hostile comment). If you feel that anti-Iranian sentiments are being made on Wikipedia, please raise it amicably and in a rational manner, and I can assure you the matter will be addressed.

I am also talking about other articles that you (re)created and were subsequently deleted, such as The English name of the Persian Language et al, which really were nothing but pro-Iranian POV pushing, and I cannot possibly see how you could reasonably consider them not to be so.

As regards to disruption, discussing such issues is not disruptive provided they are discussed amicably, but stating them in an adversarial and combative way is disruptive; it is also likewise disruptive to post talk page messages solely due to a desire to promote or defend one's own point of view. Looking at your contributions, it appears that you tend to follow the adversarial approach (which is disruptive) rather than just presenting your issues in an amicable way.

With relation to point of view, I regret you misunderstand the nature of the issue completely. I am not saying it is bad to hold a point of view; if I was to say that, it would be a clearly ridiculous statement to make. What I am saying is that Wikipedia is not interested in your point of view, and Wikipedia is not the place to try and publish your point of view. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable; it is the way our project operates, and talk page discussion is only for the purposes of collaborating towards such an effort, not promotion of your own personal tenets and opinions, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

By the way, should you feel my actions as an administrator have been incorrect, I invite you to request that another administrator reviews my actions relating to you; please do so at your own convenience, as I have no objection at all to review by one of my colleagues. You can, of course, post on WP:AN/I for an administrator to review this case - just to make it perfectly clear, I have no interest in being abusive, and do not consider that I have been so.

I hope the above may clarify the issue somewhat, and I hope that you shall be able to be a more productive editor in the future. Should you have any questions or concerns relating to Wikipedia editing, please do let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User Lochdale

User:Lochdale continues pushing an agenda. He is again deleting several passages from the Elvis article, although they are well sourced. See [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. I think this is not acceptable, especially in view of the weak explanations. See [100], [101], [102], [103], etc. Perhaps you can help and reinstate some of these passages. I think it's high time to ban this user from the Elvis article. What do you think? 80.141.236.140 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two observations: (i) "I" here means User:Onefortyone (see this); (ii) it's odd that 141 doesn't specify what the alleged agenda is/are. -- Hoary 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really don't have an agenda. An article was hijacked and it needs to fixed both for the subject matter itself and, in a very small way, so as to maintain Wikipeida as a credible source. For example, my recent edits were to a faily obscure critics review of a fairly small play in England. This was noted in the 'Lasting Legacy' section despite the fact that mainstream albulms mentioning Presley (e.g. Counting Crows, Paul Simon's Graceland etc.) aren't even included. It was a clearly part of User Onefortyone's agenda. --Lochdale 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Lochdale is only removing content from the Elvis article which is not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. Here is what this user primarily wishes to read: fan stuff like this. Significantly, non-encyclopedic fan stuff such as the section Elvis lives remains untouched. And what about several unsourced passages like this in the Trivia section:

Presley made a famous sandwich that he ate daily called a "Fool's Gold" sandwich. An entire loaf of french bread is warmed and then hollowed out. The sandwich is generously spread with peanut butter and an equally thick layer of jelly. Finally, lean bacon has to be cooked, at least a pound fried to crispness, to fill the reamining belly of the loaf. The massive loaf is then downed while the bacon is still hot. It is an idea among his fans that this was the actual cause of the heart attack that ended his life.

Stuff like this has not been deleted. The Lasting Legacy, the Presley in the 21st century and the Trivia sections, significantly the most expansive ones in the whole article, are primarily singing the King of Rock 'n' Roll's praise. Some critical voices, supported by university studies and reputable Elvis biographers such as Greil Marcus or references to plays by reputable playwrights such as Lee Hall have been totally removed by Lochdale, Hoary and an IP. See, for instance, [104], [105], [106]. Quotes from Peter Guralnick's book concerning the star's unusually close relationship to his mother have also been deleted by Hoary. See [107]. This is no more a balanced article, and it is a pity that administrator Hoary on the one hand is deleting well-sourced passages, on the other hand is leaving a lot of nonsensical fan stuff untouched. Professor David S. Wall, who has written several critical articles on Elvis, seems to be right that many authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis and most fans are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only a favorable view of the singer. Critical voices are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Dr Wall has shown that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." See [108]. The same power seems to be at work in the Wikipedia article on Elvis. That's a pity! Onefortyone 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some quick comments. First, on administrator Hoary on the one hand is deleting well-sourced passages, on the other hand is leaving a lot of nonsensical fan stuff untouched:

• I have indeed deleted passages that contain rumours and in which satisfactory sources are specified for the existence of those rumours. (I've also deleted a certain amount of mere trivia, and of salacious material justified by dubious sources.
• Meanwhile, I plead guilty to having left a lot of inane trivia, just as 141 claims. Presley is very far from being the centre of my concerns on Wikipedia (let alone anywhere else), and thus I simply haven't got a round tuit. Time and distaste permitting, I'll cut a bit more junk today.

And further:

• Onefortyone still appears to be attempting to give the impression that those who see the article on Presley in other ways than he/she does are part of, or are compromised by, the (posthumous) Presley fan juggernaut. I'm not sure how I might counter that. (Indeed, I'm pretty sure that it's unfalsifiable.) Should I perhaps upload photos of my remarkably Presley-free CD collection? But no, that would arouse suspicions that I'd merely doctored the collection for the photographs. (As for influence by the fan industry, it's 141's repeated references to "Elvis" that somehow seem a little fannish to me.)
• My own suspicion is that Presley's stepmother's MS was rejected by publishers not because of pressure from fans -- How on earth would they exert this? And what evidence is there that a prospective publisher would care? -- but because the publishers thought it was legally risky, or junk, or boring, or anyway unlikely to make money for them.

Sorry for this dubious use of your talk page, and this distraction from your candidacy. -- Hoary 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You really should stick closer to the facts, Hoary. The nonsensical fan stuff could be read for months, if not for years, in the article. There was enough time to delete this material earlier, but, as a friend of my former opponent User:Wyss, who has been banned from sexuality-related topics, you were fixated on passages I have written. Indeed, you are intentionally removing them, as Ted Wilkes and Wyss did in the past, although this material is supported by several independent sources. This is no more a neutral point of view.

The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which once acquired the worldwide rights to The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley and intended to publish the book, is a defunct company for financial reasons since the 1990s (see [109]). As too many fans refused to endorse the book, no other publisher has yet been found for the manuscript, especially in view of the high fees for the world-wide rights. But the content of the manuscript has been discussed by several authors, among them reputable Elvis experts. Onefortyone 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, I'll respond to that IFF you're interested. -- Hoary 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to parrot Hoary here in two ways. Firstly, your Talk Page should not be used this way and I think it is being abused by User Onefortyone as a backend aroudn his ban. Secondly, Hoary hit the nail on the head when he noted that User Onefortyone's positions are often unfalsifiable due to the fact that they are most based on conjecture and clever set-up. As for the article itself, well it is has numerous sections that are negative towards Presley including his drug abuse and his phlandering and cheating on his wife. The problem is, User Onefortyone makes selective use of quotes and sources to suit his own agenda. A great example of this is his citation to a fairly low-key English play that has an Elvis impersonator as one of its characters. Not content, however, to merely cite to the play itself User Onefortyone also then includes selective quotes from a reviewer that supports his overall agenda that Presley was a gay, had a sexual relationship with his mother and most likely practiced necrophilia. It's one thing to cite to a minor play but to then cite to an obscure reviewer is just more proof of his agenda. I really do not want to respond to this User anymore as he's making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be. --Lochdale 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say, you are abusing the Elvis Presley article, as you are frequently deleting well-sourced material which is not in line with your biased opinion. I have not yet seen a valuable contribution to the article from your pen. All you can do is criticizing other users and deleting their contributions. You are claiming to have read some books on Elvis. Where are your direct quotes from these publications? All I have seen is that you have added fabricated material to the article in order to push your agenda (see [110], [111], [112]). Onefortyone 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Frankly, I am rather at a loss as to what can be said in response to the above argument, most of which is related to non-sequitur fact issues that have nothing to do with the ultimate issues at hand - namely, that Onefortyone dislikes Hoary and Lochdale editing, and is presently banned from the article. I might ask participants in this dispute to please conduct such exchanges either elsewhere, or (preferably) not conduct them at all; my talk page is really not a suitable place.

Onefortyone: it's worth noting that my rôle is that of a mentor to you, not a personal substitute for WP:AN/I, and it is not my responsibility to act as an enforcing administrator on the page. Indeed, the nature of my mentorship of you would suggest that in the interests of neutrality I cannot, in fact, edit the article, nor apply administrative actions to it - lest I should have the appearance of acting in your favour versus on my own recognisance. I did tell you in my (lengthy) analysis to take a step back from the article, and the above shows that you have clearly not done so. Please ignore the article until your ban expires. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of world affairs, what with the recent escalation of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict etc., it is rather appalling that we are debating ridiculous semantics over the sexual practices of a dead rock star. I'm fairly satisfied that the edits being made that you've pointed to recently (not the ones you showed me previously, some of which were indeed rather dubious) are in fact in accordance with Wikipedia editorial policies. It strikes me, however, that you will not be satisfied until Hoary and Lochdale are banned from editing, regardless of what edits they are making; that is not going to happen, however, as presently they are not violating Wikipedia policy to an extent that would dictate an article ban.

Hoary: Please don't encourage Onefortyone to argue with yourself and Lochdale; it is unproductive, and just means my talk page looks like a train-wreck when I next come to look at it. It wasn't necessary to add the initial posting to Onefortyone's message (I knew perfectly well who wrote it, and what the person meant - the message merely served to provide Onefortyone with an excuse to have a row with you two about Elvis again). I regret I have no interest in the minutiae of Elvis' life, and so really all of the discourse here is not at all relevant. In terms of your editing, I don't think you are presently violating Wikipedia procedure (since the areas you removed clearly weren't in satisfaction of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. but your continued editing (and removal of Onefortyone's original prose) will cause him to run to me every time it takes place, and there is nothing I can personally do about it. It may well be too much of a liberty to ask you (and Lochdale) not to edit the Elvis page until the dispute has settled somewhat, but if you are willing to do so, it might at least prevent these ridiculous exchanges from breaking out.

Lochdale: The edits you have recently made to Elvis Presley contained a number of added claims that were not directly referenced a source. In future, please source all claims that you add to the article (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) with inline references if possible. Claims without sources are classed as original research and are not permitted as per Wikipedia editorial policy. In addition, it does also seem some of the edits (but not all) that you have made are not strictly in line with WP:NPOV, which I hope you will work on satisfying in the future. I might also ask whether you would be willing to enter into a voluntary hiatus from editing the article for a period of time until the dispute has settled a little, as I described above to Hoary.

Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Nicholas. I'll gratefully take up your suggestion of a vacation from that article. -- Hoary 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User Duisburg Dude

There is something going on that looks very suspicious to me. A new user named Duisburg Dude has now appeared on the scene and most of his contributions to the article are mass deletions. See [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. It seems as if this is another user account only created to harass me. Significantly, this new user calls Elvis an American icon (see [123]) and emphasizes that Elvis's funeral was a national media event. See [124]. One of his contributions to the article is that, according to the "Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation" the photo of President Nixon meeting Elvis Presley in the Oval Office is the most requested image in the history of the U.S. Government. See [125]. All this suggests that Elvis is the personal icon of this user and that he is pushing an agenda. Significantly, most parts of the relationships section and all references to Elvis's male friendships have now been removed. Nonsensical fan stuff such as the section on "Elvis lives" is still in the article. What the hell is going on there? Could it be that this is another sockpuppet of multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, who frequently harassed me in the past? Interestingly, new user Duisburg Dude is also contributing to the Suzanne Finstad, the Elvis and Me, the Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley and the Priscilla Presley articles, as Ted Wilkes did before he was blocked. See [126], [127], [128], [129]. I think it is not acceptable what is going on there. Are there any other administrators who can help? Onefortyone 02:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

spoken barnstar

		The Spoken Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your audio recording of featured articles for Wikipedia. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapter/board

What do you think of the relationship ? Do you see the relation as a federation type or a branch type ? (without or with legal ties). Do you think that chapters should have an authorization to use brand name and logo for deals (such as a DVD publishing) or should the Foundation handle this from a legal perspective ? What is your position in term of membership (should the Foundation have members or not ?). Anthere

PS: would you mind discussing these topics on meta with all editors rather than on the english wikipedia only ?

RePS : have you ever discussed Foundation matter with board members other than Jimbo ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthere (talk • contribs).

Re: Evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude are identical with user Lochdale

IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:Ted Wilkes and somehow related to the "copyrighted trademark owned by EPE" (i.e. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.), as this edit proves: [130]

Abbreviated for convenience in responding --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[...] this IP is identical with User:Duisburg Dude, who was recently hardbanned for being a sockpuppet of User:Ted Wilkes. To my mind, there is also the suspicion that Ted Wilkes has created lots of new sockpuppets in order to circumvent his one-year block and to push his agendas. Onefortyone 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there Onefortyone. I have reviewed the various diffs you have cited in your message to me; my opinion is that yes, you are correct about similarity of editing focus and editing pattern, but the summation that this element is sufficient to identify the users as one and the same is I think slightly too tenuous. That is not to say you are incorrect that they are sockpuppet users, which is possible, but rather what I am trying to point out is there could possibly be a legitimate reason for an unrelated editor fitting the profile. To quote Goethe, "the eye sees what the eye brings means of seeing" - I think you are perhaps becoming a little too paranoid that people really do care enough to create sockpuppets solely to remove your material out of spite alone. What I suggest is to make a Request for Checkuser about this, which would provide a more definitive answer on whether these editors are ban evasion identities or separate editors.

I must, however, point out to you that I am your mentor, not a substitute for AN/I; I cannot get directly involved in the Elvis Presley article to avoid conflict-of-interest, let alone apply administrative actions as a consequence. Of course requesting that someone else apply them is another matter - but nonetheless, my ability to assist you in regards to this sort of matter is very minimal, and you would I think have better success with WP:AN/I. There is not much point, really, in simply informing me about individual user contribution patterns, simply because I can't do anything about it if the user is indeed a sockpuppet. I hope you understand this difficulty. I also suggest that you not spend such an inordinate amount of your energies in analysing all the edits made to the article because it will undoubtedly just make you feel more irritated by the other editors. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that after an investigation it has been determined that I am not connected with Wilkes or any of his various sock puppets. I understand the initial block based on the initial circumstantial evidence. However, thanks to diligent admins such as Jtdirl and others who took the time to look into the issue the matter appears to have been cleared up, This really is the case of an independent user having similar edits to an article. Thank you for being open-minded about this issue. Lochdale 07:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser only says that Lochdale is not identical with the IPs Ted Wilkes used in the past. Is that right? I must confess that I would have expected this result, since Lochdale himself asked for Checkuser. However, I am not yet convinced that there is really no connection between Lochdale and Wilkes. Administrator Jtdirl has admitted that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". To my mind, there are far too many coincidences in this case that still suggest a link between Lochdale and Wilkes. What about these? Just some questions:

• During the edit war with me, both Lochdale and NightCrawler used exactly the same phrase on talk pages claiming that there are "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" that allegedly support their view. In my opinion, this cannot be mere coincidence, especially in view of the fact that NightCrawler's claim was posted several months before Lochdale appeared on the scene.
• From the beginning, Lochdale more than once removed gay-related paragraphs from Wikipedia articles, as Wilkes repeatedly did in the past.
• Both Lochdale and NightCrawler are fans of some Marvel comic superheroes.
• Both Lochdale and Nightcrawler seem to be connected to Peter E. Burk, an author of fan books about Elvis and part of the world-wide Elvis industry, which has a tendency towards supporting only a favourable view of the megastar.
• As a relatively new user, Lochdale said, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." How should he know such details if he was not deeply involved in these discussions? On Jtdirl's talk page Lochdale falsely claims that this statement was made in connection with a dispute about a blackmailer, but the said dispute took place in March 2006. See Lochdale's first edit relating to this matter here. As early as on December 19, 2005, Lochdale said, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [131]. So it is clear that he, as a relatively new user, was, at that time, talking about the disputes I had with Ted Wilkes. Very interesting indeed.
• During the dispute concerning the blackmailer some months later Lochdale said, "Clearly the most incompetant blackmailer, ever. None of these alleged pictures have ever been revealed ..." This is also very typical of Ted Wilkes who had a predilection for using the expression "ever". Another example of this predilection is on his talk page: "... I do think the Presley article looks better than it ever has ..." And he is still attacking me as he did from the beginning, calling my well-sourced edits "mean-spirited" and "definitely on the fringe". See [132].
• As far as I can see, there is no other Wikipedia user whose edits are frequently removed by Lochdale and who is constantly attacked by him on talk pages.
• etc. etc.

I think there are still many open questions. What can actually be proved by Checkuser? Could it be that Ted Wilkes changed his domicile and his IPs during the last few months? If someone intends to create many new sockpuppets he could easily change his online service providers and use different PCs, couldn't he? And what about the possibility of meatpuppetry? That Lochdale may be a friend of Wilkes or a fan group member who is posting comments Wilkes is sending him by email has not yet been sufficiently discussed or disproved. What looks very suspicious to me is that very few newly created user accounts are frequently deleting well-sourced passages I have written, and particularly such paragraphs which are very similar to those Ted Wilkes repeatedly removed in the past. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that Lochdale may be Ted Wilkes. There are too many coincidences that I don't believe in them. Onefortyone 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, this discussion is also being repeated [here] on Jtdirl's Talk Page. Lochdale 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)