Talk:Zodiac Killer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mysterious People

I think this article should be included in the category "Mysterious People". There is obviously a lot of speculation on who he is and why he has done the things he has done. If no one cares, I'll go ahead and put it in.--Hazillow 11:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging pages?

No need to, just delete the page on Paul Stine, since I already included a lot more information on the Stine murder in the main text on the Zodiac Killer. I imagine the Stine page was created by whoever did the first Zodiac entry. Ed Neil, 00:30, 2 May 06

Older comments (from the 60s?)

This is the Zodiac Speaking.

makes everyone listen - (unsigned)

So does farting in a bathtub, with considerably less harm to society. - Nunh-huh 07:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have read a lot on this subject...and IMHO I think basing this entry on just Greysmith's books is a mistake. Also in the past few years DNA testing from the letters sent have eliminated a lot of suspects thought to be Zodiac at the time. --James 06:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's why I completely rewrote the main body of the text; Graysmith's novels are unreliable. If you compare what I wrote to what's found at zodiackiller.com, you'll see that it's now an accurate accounting of the facts (I spent hours on it already and have yet to rewrite the information on the suspects). Ed Neil, 04:24, 22 March 06

---

The way that the final section (concerning the identity of the Zodiac) is written suggests to me that it may be anecdotal. If this is taken directly from the book mentioned perhaps it should be stated more clearly. Can this be sourced to anything else?

The book Zodiac Unmasked was about the Zodiac. The author says the killer is named Richard Allen Leigh.-(John D.)

Unabomber

Wasn't Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber) thought to have been a suspect in these murders? --ZekeMacNeil 14:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but was quickly proven he wasn't. Though they both had their firitations with the press and Z once described using a bomb to kill kids on a schoolbus. A good site to look at is http://mysite.verizon.net/douglas.oswell/index.html --James 19:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has never been proven by the FBI or others that Ted is not a suspect. Authorities (and I'm not sure that it was the FBI or local authorities) said they ruled him out because he was "supposed" to be residing "elsewhere." This is certainly not PROOF of where TK was at the time. Now that DNA has been extracted from KNOWN Zodiac correspondences, there is absolutely no reason why comparisons should not be made of TK's DNA (which, of course, you know they have). If it hasn't been compared, why not? If it's been done, no-one in law enforcement is letting anyone know? Why not? If it doesn't match or TK can't be included in a possible match, why shouldn't they let the public know that although these two high profile killers have a multitude of remarkable parallels (as cleanly and clearly identified by Doug Oswell), he isn't the killer. Very, very interesting as to why law enforcement is HUSH,HUSH when it comes to bringing up Kaczynski as the Zodiac. March 28, 2006. Linda

Can it be proven that the DNA was not imprinted on the materials by any of the handlers after Zodiac wrote it? If not, the test can't rule out, as seemingly insane as the option is, one of them in fact being Zodiac to begin with, and faking the seeming lack of literary competency. --Chr.K. 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Break out the suspects

I agree with an earlier comment; too much attention is spent on Greysmith and his theories and not the total sum of the research done over the past thirty years. There's dispute as to what said Allen did the day of the Lake Berryessa murders and his supposed statement about "The Most Dangerous Game". Some of this testimony came years after the murders.

I think it would be fruitful to examine the entry on Jack the Ripper and consider its organization. There the list of named suspects was broken out into a separate article, but for now, a separate section of Zodiac suspects would be sufficient to start with. Jimbonator 11:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the original start to this article over a year ago heavily based on Greysmith because that was all I had at hand. If you have other sources, at the very least please add them to the References section so that others can improve on this article. -- llywrch 01:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually have begun reorganizing your material and adding material and references from other sources. I don't know if or when it'll be ready. Jimbonator 01:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The usual suspects?

I hate to break it to y'all, but Heriberto Seda was convicted of 3 of the Zodiac murders in '98... (Just don't ask where I heard it...)

On Red Jack, see Cornwell's book claiming Walter Sickert did it. Trekphiler 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Seda was convicted of copycat murders decades after the Zodiac killings. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seda was a NYC serial killer. He has not been linked to any of the Bay Area's Zodiac spree. Jimbonator 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Envelope DNA

One of the suspect, possibly Allen was in the habit of getting people to lick envelope for him, because the taste "made him sick". IF anyone knows who it was, and has a cite, can they add it to the article? Rich Farmbrough 12:14 18 May 2006 (UTC).

I've heard this claim before, on zodiackiller.com I believe. If it's true Allen didn't like the taste of envelope stamps, then why not use a moist sponge (like a postal clerk would) rather than ask someone to lick his stamps for him?

I've never seen this "fact" properly cited. It sounds more like wishful thinking from the Allen-Did-It camp. Jimbonator 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd say it's total horsehit. 74.98.247.64 16:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In Media

In Superboy#182, a dishonest Gotham Gazette reporter misled Bruce Wayne into thinking that a "Zodiac Killer" had slain his parents and others.

22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80

re: sections tag

I added this tag because the 'Murders' section is a little long. (Sorry, didn't know where to put it, so I put it on the top). Maybe someone should break it up into chronological order, or something like that. I would do this but I don't want to break it into too many sections. Cheers riana 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in Article

article first says, "Ferrin...waitress at Terry's Waffle House" and then says, "Ferrin worked at the International House of Pancakes." where did she work??? 206.80.23.226 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not contradicting. Terry's Waffle House in 69. International House of Pancakes in 66.

Zynchronicity?

What is this word? It would appear to be some kind of pun on 'synchronicity', but I'm not certain that this is the type of place for this kind of thing. I'm extremely perplexed by this. Googling this phrase shows 79 results in total, the vast majority of which come from this article and mirrors. I'm removing the phrase since it doesn't seem to fit in with an encyclopaedia article, but if you want to revert, please let me know why this term is needed.

ManicParroT 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term Zynchronicity was coined by Zodiac researchers. It is a play on the word synchronicity in relation to certain strange events in the Zodiac case that seem to be too coincidental to be mere chance. As to whether or not it should remain as a part of the Wikipedia entry here is certainly open to debate as it is the sort of “inside” joke or pun shared primarily among researchers into the case. Hope that helps. Labyrinth13 22:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Zynchronicity is a term I coined 6 years ago here: [1].

"Zynchronicity (noun): a term used to describe the various baffling yet bizarre coincidences, synchronicities and other assorted oddities that surround the infamous Zodiac case of the Bay Area in Northern California and its investigators..."

It is definitely a play on words, with a Z for Zodiac. It's usage is strictly limited, since it relates only to the Zodiac case.Ed_Neil 23:30, 9 February 2007

Zodiac Killer

This Zodiac Killer has "hunted" and killed mostly women, which would lead most people to say it was a man, and through what it said about the asking a woman out in high school it shouldn't be assumed that it was a man when it could possibly mean that it was a girl. What if it was a Woman who is the Zodiac Killer taking in that all of the suspects where men over looking that a woman could have done it. COULD A WOMAN HAVE DONE IT? Raice 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The witnesses who saw Zodiac all could tell he was male.---Usmc75 23:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

-> I have just read the poem "Sick of living/unwilling to die" in the page "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer_letters", that was found carved into a desk at the Riverside City College Library (back in December 1966) and is believed to be the work of Zodiac (if he is actually involved in the Cheri Jo Bates case). The poem is written in an unconventional style and it ends with the letters "rh", that can be assumed to be the initials of the writer. If this is the case, then the initials surprisingly match those of Robert E. Hunter Jr. and, therefore, I think that this fact should be added in the list of indications against him, as a rather interesting clue. What do you think?Alexchondros 20:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

==

Headline text

QUESTION BOUT THE KILLER

Suspect Hunter changed to Mr. X

Note: this discussion thread has been re-titled, but the original dialogue below has been left intact. In order to join in this debate, it is important to read the entire thread from beginning to end in order to understand the changes that have been made and most importantly, the conclusions reached so far. Thanks. Labyrinth13 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire section on suspect Robert E. Hunter Jr. needs some serious rewriting, in my opinion. There is bad formatting there, half sentences that make no sense, misspellings and grammatical errors throughout the entire entry.

Discussion question: I think that it should be noted that if a person does not know anything about this suspect, it will continue to be hard for someone other than the original author of this section to correct any future mistakes. As such, could it be said then, that this section might in fact contain original research and as such, may violate Wikipedia standards against such research? Just asking, as I really don't know the answer to that one. (Let me note here for posterity’s sake that I enjoyed reading about this suspect as much as I do about any other Zodiac suspect and think that the researcher who has zeroed in on this particular person might be on to something). Labyrinth13 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the whole section should be scrapped and started afresh from someone with an unbiased view. So much of the "evidence" listed here is sheer coincidence and speculation.

This section fails to document its sources, and so I too wonder about the original research issue. Hunter was DNA tested, as I understand it, and there was no match. It says he underwent a handwriting test and came up a match, but the authorities never questioned him. Who other than the authorities would've tested him? That Hunter didn't file a lawsuit isn't proof of much of anything; Rodelli was going to write a book naming him as San Francisco's most notorious serial killer, and the threat ended any possibility of publication, so why go any farther? The bullet points on Alioto and Hunter's financial dealings are just more Byzantinism to obfuscate the lack of hard evidence. It's these kinds of things that make me think the author of this section wanted more to convince us of Hunter's complicity rather than document the accusations and evidence.

The most gaping hole with Rodelli's theory is it all hangs off some letters-to-the-editor published in the San Francisco Chronicle and the circumstances surrounding the murder of cab driver Stine. (The letters angle must be mentioned; they are what led Rodelli to Hunter in the first place.) Rodelli has to engage in serious contortions to place Hunter in the North Bay locations for the earlier murders and Riverside for Cheri Jo Bates.

This is not to say Hunter should not be discussed. He has been named as a suspect and the naming caused some waves, so for completeness it should be listed. But the current section makes him out as the strongest suspect yet, and it's just not the case. Jimbonator 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with your assessment that there indeed seems to be an over-emphasis here on Hunter as the best of the suspects for the Zodiac murders to date. (In my humble opinion, there is no single suspect that is anymore valid than the next, if one truly examines all of the evidence objectively). I hesitated to suggest that the entire Hunter section be scrapped, because, like you, I agree that the list would be incomplete without naming all of the case’s suspects (and makes for interesting reading).

On first reading the entry here about Robert E. Hunter Jr., I was confused at first as to who this person named Hunter was, but thought that he sounded quite a bit like Rodelli’s original suspect, as discussed in the past on his presently defunct website about the case. (At the time that I first heard about Rodelli’s suspect, he had not specifically named him beyond calling him “Suspect X” or something along those lines). I have written and published a book that has a chapter on the Zodiac murders where I actually quoted an observation from Rodelli’s research (Zodiac vs. BTK: A Comparison, by Mike Rodelli) that I felt was relevant to the case, but which had nothing to do with the suspect that he favors.

Conclusion: I respect Rodelli’s efforts and contribution, but will agree with you here that this entry should, at the very least, be rewritten, preferably by someone who can stick to the verifiable facts and where citations and sources can be used to confirm information. (The more subjective speculation should be removed completely unless independent sources can be cited). What are your further thoughts? Labyrinth13 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page here. The naming of Hunter as a suspect is a fascinating story of its own, and came about from an original angle of thought (at least I think it is): Since the Zodiac loved writing letters, what if he'd written other letters to Bay Area papers on other issues? Rodelli found a contemporaneous and impulsive letter writer who matched Zodiac's tone and vocabulary; bingo. Then he discovered that the letter writer lived a few blocks from the Stine murder -- an incident where the Zodiac seemed all but to disappear into the night -- and I bet his skull exploded when he realized it. (Mine would.) From this alone Hunter's worth following up, but what I've read (and some of this comes from Rodelli's own posts on a web board), Rodelli confused "interesting possibility" with "airtight case" and set his mind that Hunter was *it*. Serious hard evidence has never been produced. (To be fair, Rodelli has suggested that Hunter's action prohibited him from producing the harder evidence that he is now, I suppose, just sitting upon. My gut feel is that it's far less explosive that he suggests it is.) The logic seems to be "there's too many coincidences for this to be anything else." Rodelli and his supporters (again, from what I've seen and read) have spent more time fending off evidence and arguments against Hunter than producing the positives. I've seen other such leaps in amateur-oriented investigations, such as Ripperologists. It's disheartening to see this lack of rigor when the crimes occurred in modern times, with modern police forensic gathering techniques, DNA evidence, and even witnesses still breathing, and all this pushed aside on the evidence of some hard-worded letters to a newspaper editor and a street address.

As I've said, Hunter should be discussed, but from the perspective of *how* he was singled out, what further *hard facts* Rodelli (and others) uncovered about him that seem pertinent to the Zodiac killings, and, yes, that Hunter threatened a libel/slander lawsuit if Rodelli went public with his name. (I don't have the source, but I recall reading somewhere that Hunter was actually amused being associated with the Zodiac -- Hunter is sort of a Republican gadfly here in San Francisco -- until Rodelli planned to publish.) The section should also list how Hunter is (if he can be) connected to the other canonical Zodiac killings. If he cannot, state it and leave it be; none of this "There are whispers Hunter traveled to San Rafael under mysterious circumstances at midnight" crap that so many Zodiac "experts" toss in to spice up their pet theories.

Really, and this is the big leap, the whole page needs to be redone and a handful of Wikipedia-minded folk need to monitor it against the kind of breathless additions like Hunters'. I considered doing so in the past but just don't have the time or patience for the task.

Jimbonator 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we are on the same page here re the Hunter entry.

As far as a rewrite of the entry is concerned, I think that what you have written above in your response to me is a very good synopsis of why Hunter has been considered as a suspect. (If I recall correctly, what you wrote is very close to the same story that Rodelli outlined on his old website about this suspect).

Provided that no one else has any objections, I would be happy to rewrite the entry - time permitting - in order to remove that which is pure innuendo and just stick to the central issues regarding why he is considered a suspect.

That said, I think that it is important to wait for a bit in order to see if anyone else might have an opinion and/or wants to provide input here regarding this proposed Hunter rewrite. Labyrinth13 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Jim, I went ahead and started a rewrite of the Robert Hunter, Jr. section and have posted what I have so far on my user talk page. Please have a look at what I have written and make any changes that you think are necessary (provided that you have the time and are so inclined to do so, of course).

Your thoughts and edits would be a huge help. (And if you do make any changes, please sign with your user name so that I will know that it was you. Thanks. Labyrinth13 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some quick comments on your user page, Labyrinth13. What you've got there is a complete improvement over the current section on Hunter. Jimbonator 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike Rodelli's original web site can be read via the Internet Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206011416/www.mikerodelli.com/index.html

Perhaps this can be used a source for the entry on Hunter. Rodelli also lists several interesting items not entirely related to Hunter that can be used in the article.

Jimbonator 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a few changes on my talk page and hope to be able to research for some needed sources later this week or this weekend. Labyrinth13 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the revised Robert E. Hunter Jr. entry and posted it today. Labyrinth13 18:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted page edits twice in two days from the same anonymous IP address (69.111.57.183).

Please join in the discussion here prior to making any more changes to the Robert Hunter entry. I have also requested semiprotection for the page: Request for page protection Labyrinth13 07:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the entire Robert Hunter entry in order to remove all mention of Hunter and have instead, chosen to use Rodelli's original reference, "Mr. X."

To my knowledge, there is no information available that specifically states that Rodelli is the one who named Hunter publicly. I was under the impression that Rodelli had always declined to name Hunter and instead, referred to him simply as "Mr. X."

If anyone knows differently, and most importantly, has a cited source, please post that information here. Labyrinth13 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To the person who keeps vandalizing the page here by adding in the Robert Hunter information:

I am posting this message to you publically because you have consistently ignored all requests left on your talk page asking that you enter into the discussion about this Wikipedia entry and that you refrain from making major changes to the page.

As you will see, the Robert Hunter entry has been revised and reworded in order to remove all mention of Hunter and instead, his name has been substituted with "Mr. X."

To my knowledge, there is no information available that specifically states that Hunter has ever been named publicly. (Researcher Rodelli had always declined to name his suspect and instead, referred to him simply as "Mr. X").

You should not continue to post information about Hunter because:

1) Your claims are not supported by any citations or factual evidence beyond your own, original research. The Wikipedia policy regarding this states:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. (See Verifiability and Original research)

2) The suspect you are entering information about appears to be essentially the same as that of "Mr. X" and as such, is already covered here as a suspect;

3) You keep making major changes without taking the time to discuss this with other people who have an interest in keeping this article as accurate as possible.

I ask again that you please refrain from continuing to add entries about Hunter. If you have any questions, please join in the discussion here. You should do this prior to making any sort of major revisions to the page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks. Labyrinth13 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr X and Robert Hunter Jr are not the same person. The information about Hunter is derived primarily from The Napa Sentinel, which is a published source (although it may take some time to run down links for each and every story Martin published about Hunter).

The information about Mr X is derived from Thoughts on the Zodiac Killer and some published newspaper reports (once again, it may take time to run down any links at sfgate.com).

Oh, and the person who keeps vandalizing the Hunter section is probably Carl Rosaia, son of Ed Rosaia, who discovered Hunter in 1973. We've had problems with him off and on over the years at zodiackiller.com Ed_Neil 00:10 10 February 2007

This is fascinating, Ed. Am I right, though, that the basic information around Hunter and Mr. X (both wealthy San Franciscans that lived near the Stine murder) is accurate? Was Hunter ever DNA tested? Jimbonator 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed Neil: Thanks for posting the clarification re Robert Hunter and Mr. X. As posted in this thread earlier, I did the rewrite on the Mr. X entry, thinking that the person who had originally posted was confusing the Hunter suspect with Rodelli’s Mr. X. (I cited Rodelli’s website information via the Internet Archives and a few San Francisco newspaper sources). Learning now that these are actually two distinct suspects lets me know that some of the confusion was definitely on my part. I actually traded a few email with the person who had originally entered the Robert Hunter information, but to be frank, his replies to me were mostly along the lines of complete incoherency and I had a hard time trying to make heads or tails out of what he was actually saying to me. (He never stated to me that we were dealing with two different suspects and not having that information, I assumed that he was simply naming Rodelli’s suspect in a public forum, a real no-no on here, especially when all of his sources were un-cited. I’m glad to see that a new Hunter entry had been added and hope to see it expanded on in the future. Please let me know if I can help in anyway at all. Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"but she refused to lose control and give him a reason"

I took this clause out of "The Johns escape" section as it's somewhat victim blame-y. He's a serial killer - he doesn't need a reason. Natalie 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article due to anonymous IP disruption. Durova^Charge! 19:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection removed. Report again if the problem recurs. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism has occurred, in the Zodiac Letters section. 144.26.177.112 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Zodiac Project

I'd like to propose "The Zodiac Project".

This entry is beginning to stabilize but still needs desperate attention to detail. The various sections need to be rewritten with an eye toward bias and concision; footnotes and documentation need to be located; GDL images need to be added; and so forth. But it's a huge entry and a monster for any one person.

My proposal is to break up the work among various like-minded Wikipedians. This seems to be a popular entry, so hopefully we can find 6 - 8 people to volunteer their time and contribute to making this a top-notch entry. My idea is to farm out a particular section to each person -- i.e. the Mageau/Ferrin homicide to one person, Andrew Todd Walker to another -- and to recruit others to find unlicensed images and documentation for the whole. For example, Labyrinth13 used the Internet Archives to document his entry on "Mr. X".

Is anyone interested?

-- Jimbonator 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to lend a hand at editing. I've done a bit of work on the suspect O'Hare entry since working on Mr. X, but anything I can do to help, just let me know. Excellent proposal, by the way. Labyrinth13 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would definantly be interested, i am fascinated by this case which i read upon today. I have added some information to the Allen part, the prime suspect in this case. If you deem this inapprorpiate please edit it out.

Thanks :)

A question about the intro, "5 murders" at least 7 or 8 were credited to Zodiac, no?

Credited, yes, but not by general agreement. The five I'm counting (I only edited the intro, didn't write it) are Jensen, Faraday, Ferrin, Shepard, and Stine. Note that two others were wounded by Zodiac, but not fatally: Mageau and Hartnell. There is substantial evidence a single individual did these five killings, and that this individual corresponded with the police and newspapers under the name of Zodiac. The others are more tenuous. Johns was neither wounded nor killed, and there is growing suspicion about Zodiac's involvement. Bates, Domingos, and Edwards are speculation, with Bates' being the strongest. (I personally feel the possibility of Bates' connection stronger than Johns'.) Jimbonator 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had rewritten this entire entry sometime early last year because what little there was before was terribly inaccurate, since it was taken right out of Graysmith's novels. I even included plenty of images of the victims and suspects that kept being removed for no adequately explained reason. Regardless, I kept an eye on it for some months, removing Carl's unfounded accusations against Hunter whenever he posted them, but I unfortunately let it fall by the wayside. I spent some three hours a day or two back rewriting, adding more information and correcting errors. You want someone to keep make this top-notch? You won't find too many who have researched this case longer and who know more about it than myself. Ed_Neil 00:55 10 February 2007

Ed -- I was not the one to remove the images, so I can't speak to that. As for the amount of research you've put into this case, I won't dispute that either. Please contribute what you can. Jimbonator 10:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Leigh Allen POV?

The latter three paragraphs of the Arthur Leigh Allen article seem a little biased to me. Anyone agree? Jodamn 09:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree that the paragraphs are biased, but rather, that they are attempting to show the blind beliefs that certain people have adopted in order to try and make Allen into the Zodiac at the cost of the truth.

Anyone who has followed this case closely, especially from the perspective of all of the numerous armchair detectives out there, knows that many public reputations (along with a cottage industry selling books) thrive on Allen as the only suspect in the murders. Tom Voigt over at the Zodiac Killer website held that stance for many years, but has since changed his opinion on Allen. It is primarily Robert Graysmith and his supporters who now seem to be the chief cheerleaders for Allen these days, what with the financial stake that Graysmith has in maintaining that Allen was the Zodiac. In my opinion, it is important to point out that sort of bias as part of the historical record. Thanks. Labyrinth13 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that bias needs to be documented, but it should be documented in a non-biased way. Allen was most certainly the favorite suspect of many Zodiac researchers. He's described rather creepily (if anonymously) in Graysmith's book. Tom Voight could seem to find any excuse to refute evidence exonerating Allen. (My favorite is when the DNA tests off the back of an envelope stamp came back negative. Voight claimed there were "whispered rumors" that Allen had others lick his postage for him, when it would be far easier just to use a moist sponge, like any post office clerk.)

Some of this does seem biased, or written in tone not suited to a "quality" entry. For example: "In the aggregate, the coincidences are compelling, but when each is scrutinized, the case against Allen becomes a ball of string: pull on it, and it falls apart." Or the last sentence, which should be read with the soft dirge of a violin in the background: "Legally blind, stricken with diabetes and kidney failure, the target of a campaign of innuendo that dogged him to the last, Arthur Leigh Allen, a convicted child molester nonetheless, died without it 18 months later." ("It" being a watch his mother gave him.) The first is a judgment on the part of the writer that is better left to the reader. The second is simply biased in the sense that it's trying to evoke a sympathetic response in the reader, not report the facts. I'm not even sure this fact belongs here, other than perhaps the causes of Allen's death.

Mostly the entry wanders and can't seem to make up its mind. It should list the accusations against Allen and the responses without going into how they stand up, either separately or in aggregate; the reader can work that out. It should explain how Allen became tied into the investigation rather than argue guilt or innocence. And some documenting is in order.

In other words, present the cases for and against Allen rather than argue for or against Allen. Jimbonator 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was i that added the latter 3 paragraphs, apologies if it comes acroos bias, but i've just come across this case lately and was overwhelmed with the evidence which proves he is innocent and i just added all that together.

I certainly agree that those three paragraphs could be revised to improve both tone, quality and style. Labyrinth13 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some NPOV editing just now, but the whole Arthur Leigh Allen section is seeded with bias: either Graysmith's speculation or the anonymous hodgepodge of defenses for Allen. I think it needs a rewrite (or at least a rephrasing in parts). There's good material, but there are several throw-away lines that just add bias and little substance. Yale2010 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I recently restored the list of external links that someone had removed.

I don't know why someone felt that they needed to remove that section, unless they believed that the section was inappropriate. I can't find anyplace in the Wikipedia rules that forbids creating a section for external links (and I can't imagine why they would be prohibited, provided that the links aren't spam or don't point to sites that are primarily of a commercial nature or to a blog). Anyone know the answer to that one? Labyrinth13 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've seen says external links are fine. No idea why anyone would remove them. Jimbonator 08:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo, that is what I thought. In the future, I'll just have to keep a better watch on this page and try to catch such vandalism earlier. Labyrinth13 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On adding and removing suspects

Tmac68 has been making a number of edits recently, and in both cases they amounted to removing two suspects from the Popular Suspects section. One I let go for reasons I'll explain below, the other I don't understand and am treating as unwarranted.

First, Tmac68 removed the J.W. Tarrance entry, which seemed okay to me; Tarrance is hardly a "popular" suspect and hasn't been subject to much scrutiny by researchers. Then he removed my Bruce Davis addition (as well as the links to the Zodiac/Manson connection web sites). That I think is unnecessary, and I'm going to add it back in a minute here.

I guess a case could be made that Davis is no longer a "suspect"; the FBI and California authorities have ruled him out, and there's not much evidence pointing toward him. However, he certainly is "popular" in the sense he's well-known, or rather, his past association with the Manson Family *makes* him well-known. And frankly, although the FBI has ruled him out, they've also ruled out a lot of people on our little list, including Ted Kaczynski.

I'd like to propose that the Popular Suspects section not simply be used as a forum to promote one's hobby suspect nor only to list people who are still in contention; rather, to use the section as a list of viable and well-known candidates, past and present, even if they've been conclusively ruled out, as a way to document the history of accusations made in this case. Jimbonator 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Jimbonator here about the edits being made by Tmac68 and I would like to see the Tarrance entry removed for the same reason you cite: Tarrance seems to be more along the lines of one person's personal interest (with no one else either helping with any research or even buying into the suspect's viability, myself included. Tmac68's entries rely heavily on original research and lack verifiability, as well). As for Bruce Davis, enough real research stands behind that person to warrant being included in the list, in my humble opinion. Tmac68 should be encouraged to join in the discussion here before making any future deletions or edits and should be notified on his/her talk page that his/her edits are considered controversial. (Updated by) Labyrinth13 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have now notified Tmac68 (twice) that he should visit this talk page to discuss any future edits. (Updated by) Labyrinth13 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Davis and Kaczynski should be labled as former suspects, to catagorize them as "popular" suspects implies that they are still active suspects. I intended to do this myself but was not sure exactly how to post it. I deleted Jack W. Tarrance based on factual proof that he could not have been a viable suspect. Unless you can prove that my research is unoriginal or unsubstantiated, don't post it....I can assure you my research is, at the very least, as credible as anyone on this site. JT Mac 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose everyone in the "Popular Suspects" section should be labeled "former", as all of them have been repudiated at some point or another. I hesitate to change the section name to "Former Suspects" or create a new section called that because there are researchers out there who still cling to Davis, Kaczynski, Allen, Mr. X, and so forth even though there are strong arguments against them. The problem is, there are still arguments in support of them, and arguers as well, and so they should remain listed. If you can think of a better section name than "Popular Suspects" or "Former Suspects", propose it here.

As far as proving your research is unoriginal or unsubstantiated, I never challenged it, merely edited what was in place for bias, tone, and so forth, to make it comport to Wikipedia's standards. I also moved Tarrance's entry down the list, as we're listing suspects in alphabetical order. Someone else removed it from the article, probably because the argument for Tarrance comes down to a single web site and some finger pointing. I mean, I can name my father the Zodiac and there's about as much circumstantial evidence against him, including his haircut, age, his relocation to the Bay Area in 1968, and even the fact that he was in the Navy at the time. He might've even read "The Most Dangerous Game" at some point. I'm not putting him in the "Popular Suspects" list though.

You, on the other hand, removed Davis' entry twice, with no note why you were doing so. Even if you didn't know how to create a new section or label him a former suspect, why didn't you do the same for Kaczynski, which you also believe to be a former suspect?

Note that Wikipedia isn't the place to post new or original research. It's the exact opposite of that. Wikipedia is a place that research posted elsewhere is examined, digested, and summarized. Please keep that in mind. Jimbonator 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tmac68: It is not up to other editors to have to validate someone else's claim or research, but rather, it is up to the person who is making the claim to prove or validate a claim. This is done by citing a reliable source. (Note that the burden of evidence is on the person making the entry). Unsubstantiated, original research does not quality. (See link to “original research” above). For example, I rewrote the entry for "Mr. X" beginning with the section that, as of this date, includes footnote #13 and ends with footnote # 22. (See Suspect Mr. X). Your personal assurances that your research is valid does not live up to the Wikipedia standards as outlined in the links above. You really should take some time to read through the Wikipedia definitions concerning this in order to come to a full understanding of what all they entail. Posting an opinion based simply on one’s personal assertion that they are facts does not meet the standard required here. Thanks. Labyrinth13 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found the following in an essay written about Wikipedia entries that addresses this debate nicely: Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. In that essay, it states: To ensure verifiability, the presence of cited reliable sources in articles is non-negotiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we are encyclopedists. We are not compilers of personal knowledge, we are compilers of published information. If there is no published information that discusses a topic, then Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that topic. If an article does not have reliable sources, the information in the article is non-verifiable. Because verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, an article lacking reliable sources should be deleted. No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. Labyrinth13 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A letter to 24.21.173.33, the individual adding links to zodiackiller.com

Dear 24.21.173.33 (you know who you are),

Over the past month you've attempted seven times to muck with our beautiful article on the Zodiac Killer. You keep placing a link to www.zodiackiller.com in inappropriate areas. Four of those times you actually tried to link the main subject of the article (the boldfaced Zodiac Killer) to zodiackiller.com, as though the notorious serial murderer and his reign of ill-deedery and the web site are intrinsically, metaphysically, unquestionably connected by a magical thread. This is a no-no! (I think you know that, though.)

Several of us here are monitoring this article and will swiftly move to delete any future edits by you that don't comport to improving our world-class entry on the Zodiac Killer. We view what you're doing as vandalism, and the fact that you make these changes anonymously rather than through a registered account only makes your vandalism more chicken shitted. Please note that the only place your link does belong is the "External Links" section. If you read it over carefully you'll note that a link is already there. You apparently weren't happy that it wasn't at the very, very, very top and moved it right to the number one position. Perhaps you thought you were being helpful. Perhaps you ought to give it a rest.

I'm sure you think you're crackproof, but I know a thing or two about the Internet. I have a little list and it says you hail from Oregon, perhaps the Beaverton area. My little list also says that certain folks associated with zodiackiller.com also hail from Oregon, and I'm not talking about the blue meanies.

Peek-a-boo, I see you,

-- Jimbonator 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I won't be happy until I see people wandering around town wearing some nice Jimbonator buttons.

Tom! It was you.[2] What a surprise.

-- Jimbonator 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good detective work, Jimbo! (They could have used you on the original Zodiac Killer Task Force). I'm monitoring this entry daily, so I'll help you keep the place from being link-spammed. Labyrinth13 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the message you placed in the "External links" section as it probably should not appear there if one wants to adhere to all of the standard Wikipedia rules. Hope you don't mind. Labyrinth13 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm glad you did. I didn't have a chance last night (after I saw that it had been read). Its purpose has been served. Jimbonator 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you guys are done patting each other on the back, the fact is I wasn't attempting to disguise my identity. Would have pretty easy to do so had I wished. And Curt, if your idea of "good detective work" is to take an i.p. address and trace it's origin through any of the numerous available websites offering such services, something even most kids know how to do these days, then...

Regarding the external links: Either there's some unknown comprehensive and logical method to your pattern of ordering them, or it's an agenda-driven motive that specifically serves you two rather than the Wikipedia users. Considering you rank Zodiackiller.com dead last, even though it is the ONLY site on the list that is regularly updated, contains more than just a handful of pages of info, has active participation among users in the chat room and discussion boards, AND is endorsed by law enforcement via their continued participation and plentiful contributions, it's obvious to anyone not named Jimbo and Curt Rowlette that this is an immature vendetta.

So, you can quit messing around and rank it at the top where it belongs, or I can pursue this matter a bit further via this route: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Handling_disputes_and_abuse

In the meantime, I shall continue moving the link to the top of the list, just as I have a right to.

Cheers.

Tom, you may not have been attempting to disguise your identity, but you certainly weren't making it known either. You only registered an account after I posted my message here *and* placed a notice in the "External Links" section to read it. Then magically Tom Voigt started making these edits, not an IP address.

As far as placement of your site being some kind of "immature vandetta" on Curt and mine's part, let's return to one of the ways you attempted to mark up the article: by linking its first three words to your site (something not even found on the entry to Google.com). You created this inappropriate link at least *four times*. Immature is a funny word for you to toss around. And saying I have a vandetta against you -- I don't even know you. Vandettas are personal. I didn't even know it was you making the edits I was reverting until you registered. That constitutes a vandetta?

Nor do you have any place tossing out a hand-grenade like "agenda-driven motive that specifically serves you two rather than the Wikipedia users." *I'm* not using the entry in the name of promoting my own web site. What many of us are trying to do is make a world-class entry for Wikipedia's readers. Not placing your link at the tippy-top of an "External Links" list hardly constitutes a massive conspiracy to steer the world astray.

In fact, I didn't place your site on the "External Links" list at all nor have I added other links to the list. I don't know why it's at the bottom. But considering the ways you've attempted to subvert this article merely as a way to generate hits to your site, I'm not particularly inclined to let you be the sole arbiter of the list's order. I think even if the list had been alphabetized, you would have deemed it proper to place your site at the top.

Since you're tossing out Wikipedia policy, try this one, Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Or this one, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning: "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."

No one's saying you don't have a "right" to edit this page. It's Wikipedia, after all. But we're trying to do something important and you keep sneaking in ways to raise your click count. Respect the communal space here.

-- Jimbonator 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To Tom Voigt:

My idea of good detective work is when Jimbo identified the person (you) who has been link spamming this page in order to promote your personal, commercial website. (It is also a common courtesy to "sign" one's entries and posts with four tildes so that other editors can know who they are dealing with. Otherwise, it can appear that someone is trying to hide their identity). The argument that you use for placing your links all over the entry, i.e., "my site is the greatest on the 'net and everyone loves it" is nowhere even close to the standards of Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. I have no problem with your links being on the entry; in fact, I have cited pages on your website for several of the entries that I have been working on here. I do, however, agree with everything that Jimbo outlined to you above. I would suggest that you spend sometime reading through the rules and protocol of Wikipedia before continuing to edit here. I would also like to remind you that personal attacks are not tolerated here and can result in a person being banned altogether. Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbonator: Yes, I'm guilty: I saw that there were already existing links in the main body of the entry and I added one to Zodiackiller.com. So shoot me. However, if you'll notice, once I was made aware of Wikipedia policy, which isn't knowledge one is born with by the way, I immediately and gladly ceased adding links in inappropriate places. So please stop beating that dead horse, for it's no longer an issue.

Regarding not having an account: Not only didn't I know an account was required in order to avoid being automatically considered a Wikipedia criminal, it simply wasn't a priority until I noticed the comments being made regarding my edits. I strongly suggest that in the future, you cease your practice of implying that someone who edits Wikipedia pages without an account is either up to no good, or somehow attempting to "hide". Not only are those assumptions likely false, it doesn't serve to make Wikipedia appear all that user friendly to newbies like me who don't yet understand all of the ins and outs of this site.

"chicken shitted"???

Since you, 'Jimbonator', introduced profanity and thus made it an acceptable way to communicate, fuck both of you insecure little jealous assholes. (And please delete/edit all you'd like, because I'm making sure an accurate record of this exchange exists.)

Regarding a "conflict of interest":

1) I didn't add Zodiackiller.com to the external links area, I merely altered its ranking

2) Maybe you better remind your cohort that his website, Labyrinth13.com, is also on that list -- TWICE

Regarding 'Labyrinth13's "Commercial website" remark: Hey 'Labyrinth13', YOU USE YOUR WEBSITE, LABYRINTH13.COM, TO PROMOTE AND SELL A PRODUCT. Not only are you an obvious hypocrite, but virtually EVERY site you rank ahead of mine is commercial in some way, except of course for Jake Wark's and Mike Cole's, neither of which have been updated in...umm...years?

Regarding alleged personal attacks: I'd say the above example of 'Labyrinth13' falsely quoting me ("my site is the greatest on the 'net and everyone loves it") definitely qualifies as a personal attack and I demand he cease doing so immediately. It's false, immature, and serves to make Wikipedia moderators resemble immature fools who aren't acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, no matter how much they profess to be. In fact, I want 'Labyrinth13' to not only remove that false quote, but apologize as well. How childish. I refuse to be misquoted and slandered and if I have to publish a screenshot of this nonsense at Zodiackiller.com for millions of people to see, I'll be more than happy to do so. Hey 'Labyrinth13', way to send the wrong message. "Hey everyone, here at Wikipedia we allow you the people to edit our site! But you better not get on Labyrinth13's bad side, or he'll misquote and slander you!"

In summary, until you show me how reordering the external links is a damnable Wikipedia offense, I shall keep doing it.

Finally, I dare either of you to justify ranking my site last without using the hypocritical "it's a commercial website" BS. Unless, of course, 'Labyrinth13' is no longer using his site to sell stuff...and using Wikipedia to promote it.

Cheers Tom Voigt 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Tom_Voigt 10:00 PM (Pacific Time), Feb. 8, 2007

I consider your post above to be abusive and I will be asking an administrator to step in and review this dispute. (This is not the place to make personal attacks on other editors). Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Link placement in Zodic killer entry

There is a dispute about whether the "External links" section should be alphabetized or whether one website's link should take priority over all others and appear at the top of the list.

There is also a dispute over whether or not links in the "External links" section should be removed because some of them direct readers to what might be considered to be commerical websites.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I believe that the best way to resolve the "External links" dispute is to simply present the list alphabetically. Finally, if the links to my own website are improper due to thier being deemed commercial, I will be happy to see them and all other commercial website links removed from the list. Labyrinth13 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ummm...there is no dispute about whether to alphabetize the external links section, or remove it altogether...at least, not with me. An external links section is an obvious benefit to Wikipedia readers, so it shall stay. It's not going anywhere. Remove it and I or some other user shall put it back; it's the right of every Wikipedia user to do so. And until you can show me how reordering the links violates Wikipedia policy, I shall continue to do so. Therefore, I really don't care if you two "decide" to alphabetize the links, as -- until shown otherwise -- I have a right to change the order. But, by all means, bring an outsider into this. After all, 'Jimbonator' has a penchant for profanity and namecalling that has no business here. Meanwhile, 'Labyrinth13' has already shown he lacks the ability to be impartial, as demonstrated by his criticizing Zodiackiller.com for being "commercial" even though he uses his own site, Labyrinth13.com, to sell a book. Not only that, 'Labyrinth13' accuses users such as myself as being "abusive" for merely stating an opinion, while he's under the practice of resorting to misquoting and slander. By the way, to show I'm a team player, I went ahead and removed some obvious spam from the external links section. Seems a certain vandal had added TWO links to Labyrinth13.com, a definite no-no. After all, can you imagine the hullabaloo if I, let's just say, added multiple links to Zodiackiller.com? Something tells me that wouldn't fly too well. So that unnecessary Labyrinth13.com link is gone and I shall make sure it doesn't come back. You're welcome. Also, I exercised my right as a Wikipedia user and added a new link to that section -- TheZodiacFiles.com. I'm sure nobody will have a problem with that, as TheZodiacFiles.com has more pages and content than most of the sites already listed. And, since it's been around since 2000, I'm surprised it wasn't already listed, but that just goes to show that the current "mods" need a whole lot of help. Therefore, I shall see to it that the link stays put. User:Tom_Voigt 1:34 PM, 9 February 2007

• (From Jimbonator:) Walk away from the computer from a day and watch the flames leap up.

First, Tom, about me using vulgarity, I did not know it was you when I used the term "chicken shitted". How could I? I was writing to an IP address. Converting 24.21.173.33 into Tom Voight is non-trivial. (Even when I put together the IP address with Oregon, I didn't actually name you.) What's more, even if that conversion was easy, I merely called what you were up to "chicken-shitted", versus directly attacking you ("insecure jealous asshole"). If that seems a difference too small, then report me -- I'll take the drubbing, if it arrives. And as for the dead horse I was supposedly beating, a la the way you kept trying to insert your web site into the article in inappropriate ways, don't blame me for your lack of understanding of Wikipedia's rules. If you can't take the time to learn a web site's posting rules, perhaps you shouldn't be running a web site.

To the Question At Hand. Should there be an External Links section? Unquestionably. The research into the Zodiac Killer has been served well by the Internet community. Should Zodickiller.come be on that list? Absolutely -- as well as the other sites listed, commercial or not. Both types have contributed to research and should be acknowledged and referenced for readers. Should Zodiackiller.com be placed at the top? I've yet to see a Wikipedia guideline that states what kind of ordering is necessary or preferred. Probably the reason for that is, Wikipedia isn't about links to other sites. It's about producing quality articles about relevant topics. Some of us are trying to do that, and sitting here writing this rebuttal is taking us away from that task.

Tom, you keep speaking of your right to post to Wikipedia; you have no such right. Wikipedia isn't operated by a liberal progressive government. It's a private organization that opens its database to the public. They have every right to shut down you or me or anybody else, whatever the whim. I really believe you're operating under a severe misapprension what Wikipedia is all about. You should read more about Wikipedia's guidelines before making grand statements about your rights.

I'm tired of you referring to Labyrinth13 as my cohort, or some kind of conspirator. Labyrinth13 and I have communicated through email perhaps four times. I don't know the guy. We don't plot your downfall. He, unlike you, Tom, has contributed to the substance of the article and worked to make it a readable, reliable source of information. Both of us got tired of the way you (or rather, your IP address) were abusing the article to promote your own web site. You complain about Labyrinth13 having a book to sell, and what-not. Well, I have no book to sell. I have no Zodiac site. I have put my energies into this Wikipedia article. You were mucking it up. That's why I tracked your IP address.

I would point out that for anyone monitoring this that, after more than a month of Tom trying to promote his site in this article -- and then getting called out for doing so -- only then did he make a Federal case about link ordering and other people's commercial sites and such. This is called a hissy fit. I'm kicking myself this very minute for giving this guy the time of day.

Llywrch's comments below are valuable and worth consideration. I believe I was the one to point out that Graysmith's book is unreliable. Llywrch, all I can say is, some of us are trying to make this a more complete, more neutral, more reliable source of information. Thanks for your comments. I wish this didn't have to be the way to elicit them. Please return and contribute to the article.

Finally Tom, I would point out that your web site is linked to profusely throughout the article. Many, many of the footnotes in the entry point to your Zodiackiller.com web site for documentation and substantiation. But, of course, that would mean you've bothered to read the substance of the article here -- not merely scanned it looking for a direct link that'll make your Google PageRank that much higher, just in time for the David Fincher movie coming our next month.

Once again, Tom, I impore you to respect the communal space here. We're trying to build a world-class entry on the Zodiac Killer, a definitive history of the serial killer's activites as well as a history of the investigations into them. Quit viewing the article as a way to promote your web site. Every comment you've penned here only demonstates that this is your motive. Jimbonator 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

'Jimbonator', my beef is mainly with 'Labyrinth13'. However, since he sometimes refers to you, well, bodda bing, baby; seemed like you two were a tag team to me. Anyhoo, you as an individual seem reasonable enough, so I shall consider altering my beefs in the future. As far as not being well-read on Wikipedia policy, I'm an obvious newbie here. What's Labyrinth13's excuse???

But mainly, if you truly see my edits as merely "a way to promote your web site", how do you justify 'Labyrinth13's behavior?

This oughts be good.

Labyrinth13 refers to me because over the past few months we've both been trying to clean up, improve, and expand this article. I don't mean that others haven't contributed or that we weren't building on the work of others in the past.

Labyrinth13's behavior is far, far different than what you've been up to. He never tried to put a link to his site at the very top of the article, or mix a link into other sections where it didn't belong. He actually made additions and improvements to the content. You seem to think the fact that there were two links to his site somehow constitutes grandstanding on his part. Maybe he added them; I don't know and I don't care. The "External Links" section is not my big concern right now. When someone comes along and starts dropping in links left and right, nilly-willy into the article, trying to hijack the first three words (!!) to link to one's own web site, yeah, that's a big problem. Being a newbie is no excuse; Tom, you're a web developer and the operator of a major web site with a thriving forum, certainly you understand the necessity of looking into Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. After over a month of watching your links disappear I would think you'd do some reading and some thinking. Instead, you just kept at it.

I think you comparing Labyrinth13's behavior with your own is reprehensible. You're playing the victim card, when you were the transgressor. As I've said before, your site was linked to, just not as prominently as you liked - deal with it. Substantive contributions to the article are welcome. Inserting links to one's own web site and hiding behind Wikipedia's policies when doing so is hardly something to be proud of -- or to cry and stomp when you think someone else has done the same. Jimbonator 11:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Third party comments

I wrote the first draft of this article a couple of years ago, so maybe I'm not entirely objective, but I want to insert a few observations:

1. References & Notes sections ought to be placed before External links. External links are supplemental information to the article; References & Notes explain where the material comes from.
2. Items in the Reference & External links sections should always be in alphabetical order. The only exception would be something clearly obvious, for example in this case if the Zodiac killer had his own website, or the SF police dept. had one about him, those would come first.
3. Even though someone informed me way up at the top that Graysmith's book is unreliable, it should be added to the References section because this article mentions it several times. Even if a work is not authoritative, if it is well-known enough to come in a discussion of the topic, it should be included.
4. This article needs a careful copy edit or refactoring. Many of the paragraphs run too long for my reading ease, while others are choopy & too short. -- llywrch 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Moderator comments here.

Double Standards and Abuse from "Mods"

'Labyrinth13' has criticized me for "using" Wikipedia to promote Zodiackiller.com, a site he calls "commercial"...even though he does the exact same thing to promote his site, Labyrinth13.com, which just happens to offer a book for sale. (In fact, not only did he list Labyrinth13.com TWICE in the external links section, he also listed it in the "References" section for reasons I can't even begin to fathom.) Furthermore, he routinely removes references to my website, no matter where they are placed, or alters the position in a negative manner. That's called a double standard.

Also, 'Labyrinth13' has misquoted me in a derogatory way and has refused to apologize. That's called abuse, and is nothing short of a personal attack.

I want this nonsense to stop and I want an apology. --User:Tom_Voigt 3:48 PM, Feb. 9, 2007

Let's clear something up here: I never "misquoted you," as you seem to believe, I merely paraphrased what you said. (Look up the word "paraphrase" to get an idea of what that means). But even if I had actually "misquoted you," I am aware of no Wikipedia rule that doing so would violate here, nor am I aware of any rule that says I would ever owe you an apology. As such, your request for one is puzzling to me. I have removed all links from the section until moderators make a decision, so that part of your complaint is moot for the time being. The only references to your website that I have ever removed were those that you placed improperly into the article; I have no idea what you mean by "alters the position in a negative manner," unless you are referring to the links section dispute, which again, is moot until moderators make a decision. I have never made any personal attack against you, only complained about your use of profanity. I am not a mod, so if your choice for the title of your entry here is making the assumption that I am a moderator, then you are incorrect. Finally, this sort of back and forth banter on entry talk pages is not exactly appropriate. I submit that it would be in mine and your best interest to both just disengage from this whole thing for awhile and try to reach some sort of agreement once the moderators respond. Your patience will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Labyrinth13 01:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You never misquoted me? What do you call placing quotation marks around a sentence and attributing it to someone? Look it up, pal. Something tells me that had I done that to you, you'd be able to pull some link out of your arse that shows it's against Wikipedia policy. But of course, when 'Labyrinth13' does it, it's ok. Right?

If you're so offended by profanity, why aren't you complaining about 'Jimbonator'? After all, he's the one who introduced it here. Again, a double standard exists and you're in the center.

Oh, and by the way...why is your website listed in the "References" section of the entry, and why did you remove Zodiackiller.com from there?

(Feel free to answer the question, unless of course it violates Wikipedia policy.)

--User:Tom_Voigt 5:48 PM, Feb. 9, 2007

It is my opinion that Jimbonator should not have used profanity either and as such, I feel that you are both in the wrong in that regard. Since it is my opinion that your use of profanity was a much more offensive violation than his, I have reported you for abuse. (If you take issue with my opinion and feel that Jimbonator deserves to be be reported, than I will leave that up to you to start the complaint process). I am not sure what point you keep trying to make re your ongoing concerns about quotations or being misquoted. I have already tried to answer that for you and discussing it further makes no sense to me; and whether or not we agreed on that would have absolutely no bearing on the dispute here, as far as I see it. My website is not listed in the "References" section, but my book is (both share the same title). My book is placed there because it was used as a source when editing the main body of the Zodiac killer entry (particurly, the radian theory sections) and as such, rates inclusion in the References list. Since your website Zodiackiller.com is not a published book, it has no place in the section for books. O.K., this is my last word on all of this until moderation begins as this sort of back and forth will not get any of us moving along and back to editing peacefully without a neutral third party getting involved first. How about we both just disengage until mediation begins? Agreed? Labyrinth13 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh 'Labyrinth13', I just can't seem to find the Wikipedia policy that prohibits the listing of non books to the "References" section. In fact, in the examples they use at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#References, not only do they list websites by name, they also link to them.

Not only that, you allow Doug Oswell's CD-ROM to be listed, and a CD-ROM is not a book. Additionally, Zodiackiller.com is available on CD-ROM. And, since both I and Ed Neil have used Zodiackiller.com as reference when editing Wikipedia, it qualifies.

Quit deleting my entry. It stays, regardless of your hypocritical, immature personal agenda.

--User:Tom_Voigt 11:05 PM, Feb. 9, 2007

I've done my best to discuss your concerns with you, but outside of any formal mediation, I no longer care to have any further conversations with you. I don't find it at all productive. If you have a problem with the way that I am editing this or any other Wikipedia entry, then I urge you to make a formal complaint. I will be happy to try and work out your issues, but only through a Wikipedia mediator. Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter O and Joseph Newton Chandler

Why were these suspects removed? The basic information on Joseph Newton Chandler is available at The Doe Network, and there was immediate speculation in some parts as to whether he was the Zodiac or not.

The information on the main page of this article under Chandler seems obsolete or erroneous with regards to the implication that he may have been the Ohio Lovers Killer. DNA conclusively linked Anthony & Nathaniel Cook to these crimes. Chandler has never been regarded as a suspect because the DNA analysis was performed prior to Chandler's death in 2002. Please see <http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archives3/apr00/040700/brief6.html>

The information for Peter O is located at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, but there was unfortuantely never much information to begin with. Ed_Neil 00:15 10 February 2007

Why were they removed? Probably because the main editor around here, 'Labyrinth13', has proven himself to be incredibly biased, agenda driven and a total hypocrite who both disregards/enforces Wikipedia policy when it serves his personal interests. The funny thing is, in the "External Links" section (now gone), he saw fit to allow a link to a story about the Chandler-Zodiac connection. Figure that one out...Tom_Voigt 00:15 10 February 2007

A user named Tmac68 performed the removals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zodiac_Killer&diff=next&oldid=106960807

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zodiac_Killer&diff=next&oldid=107019334

They can be added back. I won't do them now because I just spent half an hour dealing with Tom's tantrum in another section of this page and I need some shut-eye.

Tom, quit throwing around these baseless assertions and learn to use Wikipedia's interface to determine who has made deletions and insertions. You have, once again, saw yourself fit to add a link to your site where it does not belong. Your stubbornness makes ordinary bull-headed stubbornness seem admirable. Jimbonator 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because I don't believe they qualify as "popular" suspects. I want to create a section for "other" or "lesser known" suspects where I think they would be a better fit.

Then make a new section and copy the text there. Jimbonator 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to pick sides or anything, but I have had similar experiences with 'Labyrinth13' and those who seem to dictate what should or should not go on this page. I agree with Tom's(Voigt) assertion that L-13 is hypocritical and I would add hypersensitive. Every other subject page has an "External Links" section, so why has it been removed and who are you(L-13) to say wether or not it stays or goes? As far as who's website should be listed first or foremost, is there a more prominent site than Tom's?....NO. I don't always agree with Tom but he is certainly qualified to post or edit anything on this page, probably more so than any of us. (JT Mac 11:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Tmac68: The "External links" section has been removed because I have asked moderators to step in until a dispute can be settled as to their formatting. (Read through the special "Request for comment" section above). At such a time as the moderators make a decision, I hope to see the "External links" section returned to the entry. You seem to be implying that I think that I have some sort of special rights on here when all I am doing is exactly what you or anyone else as an editor has the right to do: discuss, make changes, and challenge mistakes when you see them. You can raise any issue that you want to, just as I have done. You can challenge my work or ideas, just as I have challenged yours in the past. As to your seeming beef with me, I will remind you that all I ever asked of you was to join into the discussion here (which you have done and which is good) and not simply make major changes without giving other editors a chance to discuss those changes with you. (I did as much with the "Mr. X" entry if you look at the page history). I disagree with your statement above that implies that one person can be more qualified than another, thus giving them more rights than someone else here. That is not at all true. We are all on equal footing, so long as Wikipedia rules are adhered to, protocol is implemented and common courtesy in joining in on the discussions are observed. You may be surprised to hear this, but I think that you have good ideas and I'm sure that I would really enjoy working with you here. As such, I really hope that you and I can come to some sort of understanding and continue to work together to improve the entry. What do you say, can we start over? Labyrinth13 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think we should all be courteous and respectful of one another. (JT Mac 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Agreed and sounds good to me. (And thanks for hearing me out). Labyrinth13 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The "References" Section

The following is a message I received today from 'Labyrinth13':

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. To date, you have chosen to continuously spam the Zodiac killer entry with links to your website, despite repeated requests that you stop doing so. This message constitutes yet another formal notice to cease and desist. Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason 'Labyrinth13' sent me that message is because I listed Zodiackiller.com in the "References" section of the page. Based on his message, 'Labyrinth13' is trying to convince me that what I did is not allowed. 'Labyrinth13' is a liar.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page that deals with how References should be handled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#References

Not only do they allow the listing of websites by name, they also link to them.

Since I have both edited the Zodiac killer entry and used my website, Zodiackiller.com, as a source of info for that entry, according to Wikipedia guidelines I am within my rights to not only list Zodiackiller.com in the references section, but use it as a link as well.

Obviously the goal of 'Labyrinth13' is to get me banned from editing. He continues to accuse me of violating the rules, even though I have clearly demonstrated that according to Wikipedia policy, I am not doing so.

Quit deleting my entry, 'Labyrinth13'. It stays, regardless of your hypocritical, immature personal agenda.

--User:Tom_Voigt 6:25 PM, Feb. 10, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Voigt (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey 'Labyrinth13', now that mediation is over, how about dealing with this issue. Thanks in advance, and let me know if you have trouble understanding anything. --User:Tom_Voigt 1:13 PM, Feb. 20, 2007

Please join in on the new discussion section below Talk:Zodiac_Killer#Citing_sources re the proper way to add citations and references. It has been pointed out by Jeffpw that the entire article needs to be completely overhauled and reformatted in order to insure that un-sourced statements in the entry are either given the proper citations or be removed altogether, and that those statements already cited be reformatted to comply with the rule about inline citations. There is also a discussion on how sources not entered as inline citations should appear in the References section. This new discussion should be a huge help to clear things up for everyone involved here and is a good start toward making the entry comply with the actual rules of Wikipedia. Thanks. Labyrinth13 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I saw the RfC notice on the admin noticeboard. Lets start off with the references section. For starters, the way this is set up is less than optimal. It isn't clear which sources reference which statements and this should be rectified. Citations should be clearly marked. Fixing this should be priority #1. Moving on, an "External links" section should be added. It is helpful to have external links. That said, I think it should appear at the end of the article (after references) and editors should absolutely not be adding external links to sites they maintain per WP:COI and WP:EL (or using their own books etc. as "References"). Beyond that, the links should only be added if they constitute a unique resource of information above and beyond what is already in the article. Above all these links and their inclusion should be guided by WP:EL. Finally, I think many of the long-time contributors to this article and talkpage could use a bit of a timeout here and some time reading WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23: Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated. I requested the page protection so that a "time out" would be honored by all involved here (myself included). I also removed the "External links" section because that section is in dispute and awaiting a "Request for comment" from a moderator/mediator/admin (see special section above). Once that dispute is resolved, I would like to see the External links section restored. As for links and references to books/websites by editors who contribute here, I have no problem seeing my own work removed, so long as that standard is applied across the board to all of the editors here. Thanks again. Labyrinth13 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The best thing I can suggest here is formal mediation... and yes, per WP:COI the removal of links/sources added by their authors and maintainers should apply to everyone equally.--Isotope23 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I am hoping that things can be settled via the "Request for comment" section (and I have been contacted by a third party who has volunteered to mediate there). If that does not work, than I will set the gears into motion to request formal mediation. Labyrinth13 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this before, but you already did.--Isotope23 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but, as I understand it, the Mediation Cabal provides more "unofficial, informal" mediation, and WP:RFM more "official, formal" mediation (via WP:MC). I think what was meant is that if mediation at MedCab fails, Labyrinth13 plans on requesting formal mediation at WP:RFM, as a next step—which hasn't been done yet, as far as I know. —Xhantar^Talk 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xhantar: You are correct: if we can't sort this out via the Mediation Cabal's assistance, then I do plan to request formal mediation (which I have not done yet). Thanks for checking back and following through on this. Labyrinth13 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Mediation

Hello. I am Yuser31415 (talk · contribs), and I believe I am fairly experienced with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have volunteered to mediate in this case.

Before we start, however, I'd like to say a few things about my attitude to this conflict:

• I am neutral. I will not take sides or parts in a debate. My job here is to help you all come to a compromise.
• I am a volunteer mediator, and not funded by the MediaWiki Foundation.
• I am happy to be talked to. If you've got any queries, please contact me on my talk page. If you need to contact me privately, you may email me.

Righto, let's get it on!

---

The first question I would like to ask is, how do all involved parties interpret the dispute? What part do they have in it? Please place your answers below. Cheers, Yuser31415 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415: Thanks for stepping in. If you will read through the "Request for comment" thread above, you will get the views of all three parties involved, specifically, User: Labyrinth13, User: Jimbonator, and User: Tom Voigt. My views remain the same as to what I have already written earlier above, i.e., that the dispute here involves:

• 1). Link placement in the body of the article, not to cite a source, but rather to attempt to drive traffic to a website (the ones I and Jimbonator have specifically objected to are the ones being illegally placed to the website zodiackiller.com; look at the page history going back multiple weeks to see how User: Tom Voigt has made multiple attempts to link key words in the entry to his own website. Note that some of those attempts were done via an IP address, prior to his registering for his current user name. User: Jimbonator can supply you with the IP address in question that Voigt used to make the first link edits; I believe that Jimbonator may have even added examples of Voigt's IP edit links to some of those same edits in the discussions above). Both Jimbonator and myself have repeatedly removed Voigt's illegal links to zodiackiller.com that he keeps placing in various parts of the entry. Note that links to my own website appear in the body of the entry where they have been used as a source citation. Links to zodiackiller.com also appear in the body of the entry where they have been used as a source citation. Those sorts of links are not what is at issue here, but rather, those links that were placed not as a citation source, but simply as a means to drive traffic to a website.

• 2). Whether the "External links" section should be alphabetized or whether one website should appear at the top of the list (See page history to view how User: Tom Voigt has attempted to insure that his link (zodiackiller.com) remains at the top of the External links list. I lean toward making that list an alphabetized one, thus showing no preference to anyone). I removed the External links section until such a time as the dispute involving them can reach a remedy.

• 3). Whether links or books that are the property of any of the editors who contribute here should be removed unless cited within the main body of the article as a source for the information that is being conveyed re the main body of the work.. (I agree that any book or websites not used in that fashion should be removed, including my own and that of anyone else). Thanks again. P.S. I have left messages for both Jimbonator and Tom Voigt today, asking that they both join in this discussion as soon as possible. Labyrinth13 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Labyrinth13, for offering your opinion! I will wait for the others involved in this dispute to comment before continuing to the next step. Yuser31415 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And one last aside: User: Tom Voigt has accused me of slander/"misquoting" him/verbal abuse in some of his past talk page posts, an issue that he may try to raise here again. It is my opinion that those accusations of his are a completely separate issue and not at all central to the main complaints here. I would like to suggest that he keep that part of his complaint out of the current discussion here. He can always file a separate complaint against me regarding his beliefs about those things at any time that he is so inclined (and in fact, I would welcome it if he does). Labyrinth13 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

(From Jimbonator): I agree with Labyrinth13 on the points here and stand with the comments I made earlier in the "Request for Comment" section.

To answer Yuser31415's questions, what I think is going on here is that Tom Voigt is making abusive edits to the article solely to ensure a link to his web site receives prominent placement. He's using a selective reading of Wikipedia's policy, and an even more selective use of logic, to justify his edits.

My role in all of this is that I've become heavily involved and active in the revision of this article. I am interested in the history of this case and how it intersects with Bay Area history and culture. As the article history shows, I've made a number of extensive edits and structural changes. I don't want to claim too much credit, merely that this article has become my major Wikipedia interest.

My other role in all of this was to connect abusive edits made by a certain IP address to a Comcast gateway router in Beaverton, Oregon, and to guess (but not state) that it was Tom Voigt's address. He later admitted as much.

I'll address the "What's going on?" section of the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Zodiac_killer:

• Edit war: That's definitely going on.

• Link spamming by web site owner: I guess I'm used to the "old-fashioned" use of the word "spamming", that is, to advertise or promote in an unrelated topic or forum (i.e. Usenet) or to a private account without prior consent (i.e. email). There should be a link to Tom's site somewhere in the Zodiac Killer article. His site has been a valued resource when building and revising the entry, and is linked to many times as footnotes. On top of that, any reader interested in the subject should be given a pointer to his site for continued exploration.

That said, I think Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear on a couple of things. First, a direct link to the site should be added by a neutral editor, and not the owner of the web site: Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. I alerted Tom to this; his response was that Labyrinth13 had violated this policy (which I'm not sure is true), and therefore he should be allowed to as well. I don't have much patience for this kind of logic.

Second, the link should be placed under "External Links" or "References". I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy to know which is appropriate, and an earlier commenter made it clear our References section was out of whack anyway.

To get back to the original claim, I wouldn't call it spamming, but I feel Tom was abusive in placing his link in inappropriate places (including, as I mentioned before, audaciously linking the first three words of the article -- The Zodiac Killer -- to his site). When I alphabetized the External Links section, he quickly moved to place his site at the top of the list. He placed a link in the Pop Culture section without even bothering to add an explanation how his site is "pop culture". When Labyrinth13 removed the External Links site during the RFC, Tom quickly dug up some policy verbiage to justify placing a link in the References section, although he'd not complained earlier about it not being there.

On top of all this, I've not seen any evidence that Tom has contributed to the article in any meaningful way. I don't mean to say that he should only get a link if he contributes, but I want to point out that (as far as I can tell) all his energies on this article have gone into a prominently placed link to his web site. Yet he claims Labyrinth13 and I are not interested in what best serves Wikipedia's readers and that we have some kind of obscure agenda. I have little patience for this kind of logic either.

Finally, I would point out to the moderator(s) that there is a major Hollywood movie coming out in March about the events surrounding the Zodiac murders. I have no proof, but I do suspect Tom is hoping to capitalize on the increased traffic the Wikipedia article will receive.

• Dispute over format over the External Links section: I never thought much about it until Tom showed up. I tried alphabetizing the list, but that wasn't good enough for him. I'd be interested to hear what other articles use as a policy on this matter.

• Personal attacks: I think the record here on this Talk page speaks for itself.

• Use of profanity: Guilty on one charge ("chicken shitted"). I don't think that warranted the profanity that came later.

-- Jimbonator 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for you evidence. Now we just have wait for Tom Voigt to comment. Yuser31415 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Tom Voigt has not participated in Wikipedia since the start of this mediation. Therefore, since it is likely he has left permanently, and you two seem to be agreeing with each other, I'm closing this. Have fun editing! Yuser31415 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't left, I've been distracted with other things, including the death or a friend.User talk:Tom_Voigt 09:55, 18 February 2007 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Voigt (talk * contribs) 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure, I'll reopen the case. Yuser31415 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just summarize my opinions here, since I've already typed them in detail elsewhere on this page.

1) External Links: Great idea, but not if certain users ('Labyrinth13') are going to allow TWO links to a particular site. Also, listing sites in alphabetical order is fine with me. However, including one-page, never-updated, no-original-content sites at all to the section is silly and redundant.

2) References: Zodiackiller.com is used as a reference and everyone knows it. Therefore, it should be included in the list. Also, since Wikipedia policy allows making it a link, doing so should obviously be allowed.

Tom_Voigt 6:01 pm, 18 February 2007

---

I would like to respond to what Tom Voigt posted in his original response above:

Tom wrote, "External Links: Great idea, but not if certain users ('Labyrinth13') are going to allow TWO links to a particular site."

Fine with me if you want to limit the external links to just one per website. I've never had a problem with that at all and have never made it an issue.

Tom wrote, "Also, listing sites in alphabetical order is fine with me. However, including one-page, never-updated, no-original-content sites at all to the section is silly and redundant."

Tom Voigt seems to be under the impression that entries into the Wikipedia record are based on some sort of popularity contest, when the truth of the matter is, factual information is all that matters. Whether or not a website or other source has been updated in the past five seconds or the past five years has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the information the website or source contains is relevant to the Wikipedia entry where it is cited as a source. So I disagree with him on that stipulation here and challenge Tom Voigt to show me the Wikipedia rule he is basing that assumption on.

Tom wrote, "References: Zodiackiller.com is used as a reference and everyone knows it. Therefore, it should be included in the list. Also, since Wikipedia policy allows making it a link, doing so should obviously be allowed."

Re including a link to Tom Voigt's website in the References section: I will point out again, as both myself and Jimbonator have done several times already, that Tom Voigt's website is used as a source throughout the main body of the article itself, many of those links which both Jimbonator and myself added when doing rewrites on the main body of the article. As such, Voigt's website is indeed used as a reference. I propose reformatting the References section to include both books and websites that have been cited in the main body of the entry. (See my proposed format for References on my talk page). The new Reference list makes a distinction between published books and similarly published materials (such as books on tape and books on CD-ROM) and information that is published on a website (whether verified by cited sources or not). Finally, the first section will be for footnotes cited within the main body of the article, a major rewrite that I and a few others have agreed to take on once we can get back to editing the article again. The footnotes will include detailed references to all cited sources, such as published newspapers, magazines and books, websites such as Tom Voigt's website and others, and other sources such as film and television documentaries.

Finally, I hope that Tom Voigt will realize that the main point of contention with him here started with his attempting to link to the first three words (The Zodiac killer) in the Wikipedia entry directly to his website. I also hope that he will agree to stop making changes to the page that are against Wikipedia rules (such as his earlier attempt to link to key words in the text as a method to drive traffic to his website) and also that in the future, he will post to the discussion any intentions to make major changes to the article prior to actually making them, a common courtesy among editors here. Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Tom Voigt. Do you feel you have any conflict of interest over the issue? Yuser31415 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some comments earlier today regarding the alleged conflict of interest, and now they're gone. Sigh. Anyway, why am I being singled out when 'Labyrinth13' not only has a website, he also uses Wikipedia to link to it as well? In fact, before the External Links section was removed, he had two links to different pages of his site. AND HE USES HIS SITE TO SELL A BOOK, so don't give me that "Zodiackiller.com is a commercial website" business, because it's hypocritical. User:Tom_Voigt 8:39 pm, 19 February 2007

'Jimbonator' wrote earlier: Finally, I would point out to the moderator(s) that there is a major Hollywood movie coming out in March about the events surrounding the Zodiac murders. I have no proof, but I do suspect Tom is hoping to capitalize on the increased traffic the Wikipedia article will receive.

The above quote is just the type of hypocritical garbage that is rampant around here. Notice that 'Jimbonator' has no issue whatsoever with the motives and practices of 'Labyrinth13', who links/spams to his own personal, commercial website. But when I do it, it's obviously because I lack morals, values, ethics, and respect for Wikipedia policy. (I used the term "spams" due to 'Labyrinth13s' habit of linking to multiple pages of his own website. If I did that, he and 'Jimbonator' would probably have a simultaneous coronary.) User:Tom_Voigt 1:19 am, 20 February 2007

Tom Voigt seems to have a rather selective memory at this point. I will remind Voigt that he is not being "singled out" for simply adding links to the External links section, but rather, for insisting that his link appear at the top of the list. Now that he has agreed to allow the list to remain in alphabetical order, that should no longer be a problem. Case closed. I will again remind him that he also tried (multiple times) to link the first three words of the article in direct violation of Wikipedia rules. Finally, Voigt seems to want to hammer at petty issues here that have no real bearing on getting past this dispute and instead, is merely here to vent his anger and point fingers because he is not getting his way as he is used to. Again, if Voigt feels that I have done anything to warrant a review by Wikipedia admin, than by all means, let him start a new process for just that purpose and stop making these silly accusations here. I want to see this entry unlocked so that we can all get past Voigt's huge ego problems and back to what is most important: editing the entry. Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are all happy with me closing the mediation, please email me. Thanks. Yuser31415 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey 'Labyrinth13', you need to pay attention better. The reason I mentioned being "singled out" was because a question was presented to me personally when it obviously applies to others as well. If anything else confuses you, ask a neighbor first before wasting space by posting here. User:Tom_Voigt 12:10 pm, 20 February 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Mediation closed per request. Yuser31415 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would point out to you for the ump-teenth time: if you have a personal problem with me or anyone else who edits here, start a formal mediation process to address your concerns. Otherwise, you are simply clouding up the main issues here with a whole bunch of peripheral side issues, merely as a way to deflect attention away from your abuses that are now on record. I would suggest to you, as has Jimbonator, that you spend some time learning how to use Wikipedia so that your lack of knowledge about how this system works will not result in others having to “educate” you on its use through such extreme measures in the future. Good luck and let me know if you need any assistance or have any user-related questions. I’m always happy to help out the newbies. Labyrinth13 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Nancy Slover?

She's mentioned in the article as being one of the three who actually heard Zodiac's voice, but is not mentioned further. I presume she took the call in the Ferrin/Mageau attack, but that's just a guess. Please either expand the info about her or delete the name (I would have done it myself, but the page is annoyingly protected). Jeffpw 09:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Content Plagiarized?

Well, plagiarized is a strong word - how about just copied verbatim?

The second and third paragraphs in the Arthur Lee Allen section (starting with the words "the wealth of factors") appear verbatim on this Crime Library page. It's certainly possible that they borrowed the material from Wikipedia, but the other direction seems more likely.

More material may have been taken from the Crime Library article as well - I didn't look past this one page. 24.143.161.198 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I just checked and the text you cite above was copied from The Case Against Arthur Leigh Allen an article written and copyrighted Jake Wark.

The text in the Wikipedia entry reads:

The wealth of factors pointing to Allen's innocence has led many armchair investigators to approach the record looking for loopholes in the truth. When Allen's fingerprints did not match the crime scene prints, doubt was cast on their legitimacy despite law enforcement's confidence in them. When his handwriting did not match the Zodiac's, a photo-enlarger set-up was proposed. When Allen passed a grueling 10-hour polygraph test, he was labeled a sociopath who could beat the machine.

The text in the Jake Wark article reads:

The wealth of factors pointing to Allen's innocence has led many armchair investigators to approach the record looking for loopholes in the truth. When Allen's fingerprints didn't match the crime scene prints, doubt was cast on their legitimacy despite law enforcement's confidence in them. When his handwriting didn't match the Zodiac's, a photo-enlarger setup was proposed. When Allen passed a polygraph test, he was labeled a sociopath who could beat the machine.

As you can see, it was simply copied and pasted into the article. This is rather serious, so I have just deleted it completely. Good eye and thanks for pointing this out.

-- Labyrinth13 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Graysmith

There are a number of problems with this entry:

It has been suggested by some investigators that the letter was actually forged by Robert Graysmith, the political cartoonist who wrote a popular though highly inaccurate book on the case in 1986.

First, there is no source for the "suggested by some investigators" accusation. Second, there is no source or explanation for the "highly inaccurate" rebuke. Considering the alarming amount of work done on this article by individuals who seem to have much invested in the Zodiac case, this is a red-flag that suggests it was written by those with axes to grind. RoyBatty42 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is problematic. Not one inline citation, so who knows what is actually sourced and what was just thought up because it sounded plausible. It's a shame it's protected, and that there's so much edit warring been going on. It has the potential to be a very good article, if energy were not wasted in senseless fights about the position of external refs. Jeffpw 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm speaking for all the other regular editors here when I say that your help in providing inline citations for the entry would be most welcome! And I agree that there is much about the article that needs some serious clean-up, from run-on sentences to uncited sources to violations of NPOV. Mediation re link placement should be over soon and hopefully, the page will be unprotected quickly. I hope that you will keep checking back and offer up your assistance toward improving the article. Thanks. Labyrinth13 04:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I edited this article, you and Tom both wouldn't have to worry about external links and their location. According to WP:MOS, websites used as refs may not be repeated in the external links section, so that becomes a moot point. For the rest of us looking in, this is really seeming like a pissing contest. I'm not a fan of wikidrama, so I would request that the page be unprotected. A better solution to me for this problem would be to block/ban anybody engaging in an edit war over this article. Jeffpw 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: I think your suggestion re not including links used as cited sources in the External links section is a good one and I for one will be more than happy to stand by such a decision. Now if you can get others to agree to the same standard and most importantly, if you can enforce that rule, than you have my full blessing to so act as the guardian. By all means, please make your suggested edits once the page is unlocked. Re the dispute: It may seem like a simple “war of the wills” on its face or to anyone who has not bothered to read the dispute in its entirety. But I will remind you and anyone else who reads this that the whole thing started not over simple link placement per se, but rather over Voigt’s multiple instances of linking the first three words in the entry directly to his website, zodiackiller. (Have a look at the page history and the discussion area to see for yourself). I hope that having to resort to a block or ban against editors never occurs. However, you or anyone else who has an interest in preserving the integrity of the Zodiac killer entry should bear in mind that there may come a time when you, as did Jimbonator and myself, may also have to step up to the plate to defend what you think are abuses to the entry, especially against editors who seem to have virtually no clue as to what Wikipedia is really all about. Now, I've learned a thing or two since the dispute started, but please don't try and make this out to be as simple of an issue as you seem to be implying above. It is not. Please read the whole history of the nature of the dispute before making such blanket statements. Thanks for your comments and I look forward to working with you on the entry in the future. Labyrinth13 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this entry is ever unlocked, I might be able to continue editing and rewriting this article AND include sources for such things as the suggestion that Graysmith forged the April 78 letter. I'm not the only one who thinks so, and there are lengthy posts at zodiackiller.com explaining my reasoning behind this. I do not have an axe to grind, I am merely interested in the truth. Ed_Neil 23:11 19 February 2007

Ed Neil: You or anyone else can request that the entry be unprotected at anytime. However, it probably will not be allowed until the mediator issues his final thoughts on the dispute that resulted in the page being locked in the first place. Thanks for being patient (to you and everyone else here). Labyrinth13 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Freetimes.com reference for Joseph Chandler

Under the Joseph Chandler section, there's a reference to a freetimes.com article. A brief glance over the other topics in the cited article (melon heads, alien cell phones, human/frog hybrids, alien cop, and a moth man) makes me wonder the legitimacy of the bit about Chandler. 76.185.92.143 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That edition of the Free Times was their annual Halloween issue, which focusses on local legends. While some are outlandish, the report on Joseph Chandler is backed up by police reports and newspaper accounts.

It would be helpful to find another newspaper account that substantiates the Free Times' story.

I still wonder if Chandler is "popular" enough for the Popular Suspects section. There is a separate discussion (above) where I give my thoughts on all this. Jimbonator 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to a page that has posted most of the original article that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: http://huffcrimeblog.com/?m=200603. Unfortunately, there is no longer a direct link to the original Plain Dealer page. Here's an early story about Chandler from the Rapid City Journal: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2003/06/06/news/local/top/news01.txt

When will this page be unlocked? (JT Mac 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

You or anyone else can request that the entry be unprotected at anytime. However, as noted above, the mediator has yet to issue his final thoughts on the dispute that resulted in the page being locked in the first place. (I have sent him an email to ask him how soon we can expect a resolution and have yet to hear back from him as of this writing). I hope it will be unlocked soon so that everyone can get back to improving the entry. I have also posted at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Zodiac_killer#Discussion and asked the same question. Labyrinth13 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

No one to this date has figured out what his letters say? O_o If thats so... Can I take a crack at cyphering them? or does no one but the FBI have them?