Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni

Please accept this request

Note to the arbcom: I would like to see this problem resolved despite the fact that User:Waya_sahoni withdrew his statement. Until the arbcom rules on the dispute regarding the article and whether or not User:Waya_sahoni is a sockpuppet of Jeff Merkey, we will never resolve anything. Every other process has been tried; this is the last place to go. I would hate to see this vexatious dispute go on any longer than necessary. It's tying up the time of a lot of editors. Thanks, --BWD ^(talk) 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the nominator withdrew his request in the main because he realized the most likely outcome of acceptance would be his own blocking or editing restriction on the article in question. Moreover, I think such restriction is the clearly appropriate outcome. I'm not certain whether this means it really should be accepted or not: the nomination was badly misformed at every point in its revision. It may be true that the better forum for aggressive WP:AUTO violation complaints is a user-conduct RfC; however, given that the violator himself started this proceeding in an effort to "game the system", I guess I'd be happy if arbitrators went ahead and accepted it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a pretty minor character is this thing (no major revisions and no reverts), but I think this whole thing needs to be resolved. Since Waya brought this request, I think this is the one that should be accepted and some kind of a decision made. That said, I do not intend to agree to any decision that requires me to be identified as a so-called 'Stalker' or any of the other phrases Waya sahoni throws around. While I don't have the great number of edits that Lulu and other editors have, I've editing here a long time before either Gadugi or Waya sahoni made an appearance. --Jerry (Talk) 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LotLE "meta" comment

Note: For some reason I seem to have been particularly singled out for personal attack by Waha sahoni. Maybe it's just because I engaged him respectfully on my user talk page, but not in a way that accepted his efforts at intimidation. The "accusations" are a bit weird: Lulu is an IBM employee/contractor on his user page. As it happens, I am neither an employee nor contractor of IBM (though that doesn't seem like a bad thing to be); but I do publish paid articles (about programming techniques, nothing about any litigation) on IBM developerWorks, with IBM paying for them via some intermediaries. Waya sahoni also claims that all the editors: are SCOX/Linux members. SCOX is the stock symbol for a company involved in multiple litigations, to which Jeff Merkey has sometimes claimed association; I have no association with that company. But I think Waya sahoni is continually referring to some discussion group about that company when he writes the prior stuff (I think on Yahoo!): I've never contributed to, nor even read, that discussion group (not that doing so seems inherently bad either). I don't really know what a "Linux member" even is? That is indeed one of several operating systems that I use; but I'm not a developer of that OS (nor any OS, actually; I don't know if other editors are).

The whole thing reads like some sort of paranoid fantasy by Waya sahoni of a big conspiracy going on behind the scenes, presumably targeting Jeff Merkey and his "close friend" Waya sahoni. Anyone with any vague connection to anyone Merkey/Waya sahoni have imagined as enemies in the past are presumed to be "in on" the conspiracy... hence my rather indirect connection with the rather huge company IBM shows that I'm part of this plot. Moreover, I am also listed on Jeff Merkey's "hit list" that other editors have mentioned; accused, in quite esteeemed company, of "internet stalking", child-molestation, "plagurism", and what is apparently a vague effort to insinuate I'm gay (Jeff Merkey also added that purported fact to my biography at David Mertz; it would be completely non-notable whether true or false, but I think Merkey thinks of it as a slander).

Statement by Waya_sahoni

I hereby give affirmation and based on joint stipulation I will immediately consider myself enjoined from performing any edits on the article Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Pursuant to this agreement with the ARBCOM, I also respectfully ask that any editors who have posted statements on their user or talk pages the "are here to clean up the mess left by Jeff Merkey" or statements they are "lurkers or members of SCOX" also be similairly enjoined and banned permanently from editing the article with the exception they can post materials to the talk page for review. These statements and the behavior of these editors evidences stalking and intent to engage in stalking and compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The affect of allowing any editor identifying themselves as part of the event (the article contains large sections discussion litigation with SCOX and Linux members) makes wikipedia part of this event and obliviates WP's abilty to be a neutral observer and separate from the event itself. This should include any editors who have identified themselves as receiving compensation from IBM, SCO, Linux, or any commerical interests who are involved in the disputes (Lulu). I think this is reasonable. Fred's credentials and legal experience inspire me with confidence in his handling of the matters pertaining to this article. I also am humbled and thankful of his generous and kind comments in referring to my contributions as "excellent". I will endeavor to continue to provide this level of quality in my work. I ask that those users who have made statements they are "here to stalk Jeff Merkey" be banned from following me or Jeff around the site and reverting and defacing our edits. Waya sahoni 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Partial rebuttal of "Waya sahoni's" statement

Let me start out by saying that I completely reject the charade that "Waya sahoni" is anyone other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. That is an issue which remains to be addressed by Wikipedia.

That said:

• if "Waya sahoni" actually follows through and adheres to his self-described "affirmation and based on joint stipulation [he] will immediately consider [him]self enjoined" legalistic mumbo-jumbo (acting as an attorney pro se, again, Jeff?), it would be the first time that Merkey actually kept an agreement he has made with anyone.
• "Waya sahoni" himself is the sole individual who obsesses about "lurkers" and "stalkers" and "members of SCOX" and "Linux Editors" -- this pantheon of faceless attackers out to get "Waya sahoni" and poor Jeffrey Vernon Merkey -- in post after post here.

If anyone here has used that phrasing about themselves, it is only "Waya sahoni's" determined refusal to see that as the true humor, sarcasm, or parody of "Waya sahoni" himself that it is, combined with his desperate need to find some sort of evidence, somewhere, of this vast conspiracy against him, that lets "Waya sahoni" make such a patently silly charge.

• "Waya sahoni" constantly harps about acts of alleged "vandalism" taking place on a page he himself (having no apparent knowledge of computers, computing, software authoring, Linux, the Linux Kernel Mail List, or the SCO Group vs IBM/Novell legal actions) does not have any perceivable experience, knowledge or authority to edit or modify. What exactly qualifies "Waya sahoni" to even go near this page in an editorial capacity?

The only possible connection between Merkey and "Waya sahoni" (aside from the fact that they are one-and-the-same person) is that they are both allegedly Native Americans. Exactly by whom, and exactly where, has it been established that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is truly a Native American? This is an important issue that Merkey has always refused to address.

• Seemingly "Waya sahoni" is utterly unqualified to edit points relating to computers, software, Linux, the Linux Kernel Mail List, Novell, SCOX, etc. Unless, of course, "Waya sahoni" is Merkey. But then we have other problems, don't we?
• In point of fact, all the alleged instances of "vandalism" on Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey have occured by the editors charged in this WT:RFAr who are reverting the deletions made by "Waya sahoni". And what exactly is "Waya sahoni" so intent on deleting? Why, any reference whatsoever to Jeffery Vernon Merkey's infamous posts to the Linux Kernel Mail List.

This in itself is quite the coincidence: how funny that "Waya sahoni" obsesses about deleting *exactly* the same body of information that Merkey himself was so intent on deleting before he was permanently blocked as User:Gadugi.

• The LKML posts were the primary focus of Merkey's lawsuit "Merkey vs Perens et al" (in which I was a named defendant). Through that lawsuit Merkey attempted to threaten and intimidate into silence anyone who had aggregated and made available over the Internet Merkey's verified posts to the Linux Kernel Mail List, or who discussed either those posts, or Merkey himself, in any way. This lawsuit was little more than a blatant attempt to deny people their First Amendment right to free speech.
• "Waya sahoni" attempts to imply that some sort of dark evidence exists somewhere through his vague allegation that "the article contains large sections discussion (sic) litigation with SCOX and Linux members".

1. Yet SCOX is mentioned only once in the entire article, and that only because Merkey himself added "John Does 1-200" to his lawsuit in an attempt to silence posters to the Yahoo! Finance message board SCOX, which remains to this day one of the best sources for original research and discussion of the SCO Group's ongoing legal saga.
2. The phrase "Linux members" is not found in the article at all. The word "Linux" is found, principally in the context of the Linux Kernel Mail List, to which Merkey is possibly the most notorious poster, and of which "Waya sahoni" and Merkey have been engaged in a relentless drive to delete any and all references for close to a year.

As you may sense at this point, I could go on in rebuttal certainly far longer than any of us would wish, and far longer than is at all necessary. "Waya sahoni's" pseudo-legalistic attempt to force reasonable editors to stay away from the article about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is a blatant continuation of Merkey's lawsuit, and intends to suppress information that Merkey may find personally embarassing, but which is valuable and pertinent in any discussion of Merkey as a notorious public figure. Finally, it represents Merkey's continuing, bald-faced attempt to stifle the free speech of those who choose to remember things which Merkey would rather forget.

Perhaps Merkey would do better to spend his time pondering how to control the character of his future utterances (something which "Waya sahoni" clearly has not yet learned to do) than to try to wipe the Internet clean of what he has already said. -- talks_to_birds 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Formal ruling required

This suggestion by Waha sahoni is more-or-less a perfect resolution, if actually followed. It resolves the WP:AUTO concerns perfectly well (whether Waha sahoni is Merkey himself, or merely someone closely associated). I will also second Waha sahoni's suggestion that editors should not be on WP solely to push an agenda on one topic; there have been a few editors who have apparently joined for the express purpose of editing the Merkey article, and that's bad if that remains the whole of their WP "careers". However, it should be noted that I—like most of the editors named in this RfAr—performed thousands of edits on hundred of articles before I ever first read or edited the Merkey article, and edits to that one article have been a very small part of my/our editing in the meanwhile. Such editors have maintained the article in good shape against the occasional anti-Merkey vandals, which are always very quickly reverted or toned down.

Ooops... while I was editing, Waha sahoni edited his comment to add a gratuitious personal attack on me. Really bad form. Also the conspiracy stuff about anyone indirectly associated with various large companies or an operating system being blocked is a renewal of the foolishness. It's sort of suggestive that when Waha sahoni next violates his pledge, it will be on the alleged grounds that "that editor is a friend of some guy who once worked with someone who met Linus Torvalds, and therefore has a 'conflict of interest'". Clearly, an agreement not to violate WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV by refraining from an article can't carry elaborate and subjective caveats.

I do think it would be a good idea for the arbitrators to accept Waha sahoni's statement as a formal ruling, so that if he violates it in the future, that can escalate to a full block with some efficiency, rather than requiring navigating this whole process a second time. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

His request seems reasonable at face value. However, given the amount of sockpuppets this user has created in order to disrupt the article in the past, I am extremely skeptical that Waya_sahoni will comply with his own suggestion. I'd still prefer a decision from the arbcom on the matter. --BWD ^(talk) 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Merkey/Waya's proposal boils down to an attempt to prevent anyone from editing the article who has ever expressed an interest in the subject of the article or in any related subject except, of course, for the sockpuppet that will be created to turn it into a vanity page. — MediaMangler 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let this request be withdrawn

In order tp achieve a lasting solution for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey page, you should let Waya sahoni withdraw his request for arbitration and then file your own. It's aim would be banning Waya sahoni (which we all believe is Merkey himself) vandalizing the article on himself. However, I would not be a party because I never edited the page.

BTW, the fact that that I never edited the page which is the point of this dispute did not stop Merkey Waya sahani from instigating Guanaco into blocking my former account indefinitely (which means that technically I am Friendly neighbor's sockpuppet). Anyone care to investigate and unblock my former account? Friendly Neighbour 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree to filing a new request. But in this case, I want to avoid filing a new one because so many statements have been made in this one already. It would be too much work to file a completely new request. It would gum up the page to keep filing requests, and it would look frivilous. --BWD ^(talk) 20:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)