Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lexi Marie (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 14 March 2006 (→Karmafist: case opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an arbitrator or clerk may do so.



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

FourthAve

Involved parties

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) (bringing this issue to the attention of the committee)
Jesster79 (talk · contribs)
Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
User-multi error: "Reyk" is not a valid project or language code (help).
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Notice to FourthAve
Notice to JesseG
Notice to Tony Sidaway
Notice to Reyk
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Various warnings
  2. Talk page intervention
  3. Talk page intervention
  4. Attempted mediation by Reyk
  5. RFC by me.

Statement by Jaysuschris

It was my sincere hope that this matter could be settled without coming to this forum. Unfortunately, the intervention of various third parties has done little to abate FourthAve’s behavior. His consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in the face of informal and formal warnings by other editors, stern warning by administrators, and even a couple of account blocks, has led me to the realization that no other choice exists. The following list is a summary of activities that I believe the Arbitration Committee should consider.

  1. Personal attack A B, C, D against me
  2. [1] Personal attack against JesseG
  3. Obscenity/Extreme violation of NPOV (sexually derogatory language)
  4. Extreme NPOV violation in Bob Vander Plaats
  5. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, and F in University of Dubuque
  6. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H in Jim Nussle
  7. Personal attack when notified of the RfC A, B, and C
  8. Probable sock puppet (all edits were WP:NPOV or WP:NPA violations in the custom of this editor)
  9. Personal attack A, B, C, and D against Tony Sidaway

FourthAve’s behavior goes beyond what should be acceptable, even in politically sensitive articles. It is my hope that the Arbitration Committee will join me in the view that FourthAve should be enjoined from editing Jim Nussle, Bob Vander Plaats, and University of Dubuque while this matter is considered due to his demonstrated unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV in these articles. - Jaysus Chris 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by JesseG

In regards to the FourthAve user, I wish that it had never had to come to this level. I wish that we could've resolved this issue long before having to take it to this formal level. However I don't see that we have much choice here, as FourthAve has ignored repeated requests to respect others (contributors, other people, institutions, etc). However our requests seem to have all fallen on deaf ears, FourthAve has not only ignored such requests, but has also continued to engage in personal attacks. He has been blocked for short periods of time, and after these blocks have expired, he comes back and engages in further attacks.

I feel that some sort of stronger action needs to be taken by the administration of Wikipedia. FourthAve has shown through word and deed that he will not listen to others and will do what he pleases, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable behavior. He has shown nothing but contempt for others. And if he will not respond to arbitration by ceasing personal attacks and vandalism of articles, then he should be banned from making further contributions. It is still my hope, even now, that FourthAve will avail himself of this one last chance he is being offered, that he will cease making personal attacks and vandalizing articles so that he can continue to make a useful contribution to the Wikipedia article.

JesseG 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

An odd case. This fellow has many, many edits and considers himself a good ("admin level") contributor to the project. However he is obsessed with the supposed evilness of political Republicans, in particular a certain Iowa Congressman. FourthAve has repeatedly and persistently added allegations of political corruption and moral turpitude of this fellow and his current wife to the biographical article on the Congressman and also to related articles. He has accused those who object to his lurid addenda of being such things as "a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage" and "a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit."

Over the past few days I've been attempting to dissuade this fellow from pursuing his obsession; his other edits seem to be in good faith if not of particularly high quality. He continued his vandalism today at the end of a 24-hour block [2]

I'm not convinced that an arbitration would have any effect in this case. His problematic activities are blockable, and inasmuch as he is likely to respond to blocks by limiting the vandalism and personal attacks, so he is likely to avoid progressively longer blocks. Should his behavior continue, he will be blocked for months or perhaps permanently. I can think of no possible arbitration remedy that could further empower the community to remedy his actions, and suggest that arbitration would probably be a waste of time at this stage, Should he eventually respond to blocking by ceasing vandalism and personal attacks, then in all likelihood there will be no remaining problem with this editor, and in any case this would be a problem for a future arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment by MONGO

The level of personal incivility has become blockable and is borderline bannable at this point. I posted an unrelated comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page and saw that the next edit to Sidaway's talk page was a partial blanking of the page by User:FourthAve[[3]. I asked FourthAve[4] if this was an accident and s/he responded about being at an admin level of editing[5] (not sure what that has to do with the page blanking), but later again, did not answer my question at all, instead being deliberately confusing[6]. I saw further incivility after being informed about FourthAve and tried to communicate about the need for civility [7], [8], [9]. When User:Jaysuschris informs me of the situation in more depth, FourthAve responds with nothing but insults and profanity to Jaysuschris...I also should ask all to note the reference to the following comment by FourthAve in the last diff: "Jaysus Chris is blasphemous by his choice of user name: he clearly has a deep personal hatred of the Ten Commandments". FourthAve then calls Jaysuschris a "bitch" and signs(?) his next post to my usertalk with "Ten Commandments"[10]. FourthAve last comment on my usertalk was a bit calmer, but still argumentative, and this was after I had repeatedly asked him to be more civil.[11]. My usertalk page is then hit with this edit[12] by an anon, and asks me "Shall I call you a homosexual slut?", right after mentioning editor Jaysuschris and the Ten Commandments again. The rudeness and incivility doesn't seem to have abated much, with edit summaries such as "Fixed right-wing-whako depravity", [13], and POV unreferenced nastiness such as "Bullock is a whore", "many graduates of UD regard him and his wife as common prostitutes" [14]. If this keeps up a long term block is mandatory. Start with a week and then a month. Editors to this project do not need to be called "bitch", "piece of shit", or "homosexual slut". Further acts of incivility should then result in longer blocks. It should be noted that I see his contributions aside from the incivility to be suspect as well, as they are extremely POV and unreferenced, so I'm not sure much loss is going to occur to Wikipedia if FourthAve sits out a week or even a month block to try and reconstitute themself.--MONGO 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)


Statement by Sander on Talk:Dutch language

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

(main message)[[15]] (Arturus)[[16]] (Andries)[[17]] (Arnoutf)[[18]] (ClairSamoht)[[19]] (Doric Loon)[[20]] (Ronline)[[21]] (Avb)[[22]] (Woodstone)[[23]] (Meursault2004)[[24]] (Gareth Hughes)[[25]]

Note: I have moved the message on User talk talk:Arturus to User talk:Arturus — sjorford (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:

We tried discussing the matter and have had a mediation.All, inconclusive.

Statement by party 1

The ongoing dispute is about re-adding the following line in the Dutch language article (Which I support and they oppose):

Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.

During the discussion I redefined the line (because of the sometimes used broader meaning of language) to:

Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself¹

¹ note: Creoles, Pidgins and mixed languages aren't taken into account.

This is accurate and the truth, Dutch is one of the few.As it is one of the two Indo-European languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself (Afrikaans) together with German (Yiddish).

The totall languages on earth according to ethnologue is 6.800, although they count dialects, mixed languages (like:Franglais) creoles and pidgins and also a huge amount of extinct languages as well so the amount of actual language in the socio-political meaning (which the line in question aims at) is much, much lower ... The total languages in the indo-european language tree is 443 (3 billion people speak a Indo-European language natively), that means that of the 443 IE languages only 2 have produced another language while still being spoken itself (under ideal circumstances). That's 0,45% of the IE languages, now it is logical and known that other language groups behave in the same way.In any case, Dutch is one of the few.

The opposition focusses on the fact that there is no original research to back this line up.Ie, no article or such.But the wikipedia article Door claims that the function of a door is to : to allow people, animals and objects to pass I'm pretty sure an article has never been written about that, because it's so obvious.Just like the line in question. Sander 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The person to question the sentence in the first place, Arturus agrees with me now.

Adding:

  • http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middelnederlands (In Dutch, has an English version) Middle Dutch was spoken till 1500 when Modern Dutch (1500 present) took over.Afrikaans began to differ from the 17th century.
  • Brazilian Portuguese is a collective name for the varieties of Portuguese written and spoken by virtually all the 180 million inhabitants of Brazil. Source Wikipedia.
  • I did provide arguments, when the commision reads the talk page, they'll see the opposing party was repeating itself.
  • Afrikaans is a separate language, and not a creole. It was recognised in 1925.

Statement by party 2

Sandertje poses that "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself".

On the formal side of this dispute there is the rule of "no original research". Wikipedia is not about new coined theories, but established fact. After being asked to supply references, Sandertje has not supplied any sources whatsoever, he just keeps repeating his opinion. Sandertje even writes that he is convinced there is no publication stating this as a conclusion of professional research. He presents a reasoning based on a single diagram of one language group, but has so far declined to reveal the origin of this chart (he might as well have drawn it himself).

Since no supporting sources are given, it should be seen as original research (at best), or as patent nonsense (at worst).

On the content side of the dispute, focus is mainly on the phrase one of the few. It is a normal process of language development that one language splits off from another. That two branches of a language separated culturally or geographically undergo different changes over time and are then considered to be different languages is the entire history of genetic language development. It is hardly meaningful to say that one of them stays itself and the other is being "produced". Whether one of the formed languages keeps the same name as the common ancestor is more a political than a linguistic issue. Furthermore, the line between dialect and seperate language is blurry. Therefore that one language is alive while another, that split off from it, exists as well, cannot be considered a rare case.

A Google search for "language tree" delivered on the fist page of results a few sites containing diagrams showing language trees (see Talk:Dutch_language#Small_sample_of_language_trees). All of them showed Dutch and Afrikaans as both descending from a common ancestor, not Afrikaans as a direct descendent of Dutch. With this, the stronger idea that Dutch is one of the few living languages with offspring might even be considered a moot point. −Woodstone 13:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party ClairSamoht

Modern Dutch is not 17th-century Dutch, although Sandertje argues otherwise. Afrikaans is a creole based on 17th-century Dutch, Khoisan, Khoikhoi, German, French, and Malay, although Sandertje argues otherwise. Brazilian is dismissed by Sandertje as a mere dialect, despite the fact that it bears the same relationship to Portuguese as Afrikaans bears to Dutch.

Abraham Lincoln was posed the riddle, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" His answer was "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

The same logic is relevant here. If that obvious statement were obvious, it would be obvious. ClairSamoht 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Henryuzi: Request for Appeal of ArbCom Sanction

I ask the ArbCom to reconsider its sanction against me ([26]). Henryuzi 06:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi[reply]

Involved parties

Fred Bauder is the arbitrator who proposed the decisions that affected me ([27]). I have notified him of this appeal ([28]). Based on his advice, I believe that there is no other alternative to this way of dispute resolution.

Statement by Henryuzi

I have been sanctioned by the Wikipedia arbitration committee ([29]). This sanction took place in response to my voluntary and unsolicited submission of a statement in a preexisting arbitration of other parties ([30]). No one has presented a statement of charges against me. I had no opportunity to collect evidence, challenge my accusers, or formulate my defense. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been accused of violating Wikipedia editorial guidelines in my contributions ([31]). The arbitration committee has failed to respond to my request to clarify the nature of conduct for which I was threatened with sanctions, and eventually sanctioned. Fred Bauder has referred me ([32]) to Jimbo Wales and this body in response to my request for an opportunity to appeal the ArbCom decision to the extent that it affects me. I ask the ArbCom to reconsider its decision. Henryuzi 06:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi[reply]


Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

  • Reject for now. The Arbitration Committee is not a true court, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more. Please present an reason for me to reconsider the decision in terms of benefit to the encyclopedia and not lawyering. After reading your statement, I'm still not convinced in the least that the decision wasn't the best for the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waya sahoni and WP:RS vs. SCOX and Linux Community Editors

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified all parties. Waya sahoni 04:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:Guanaco mediated the initial dispute and blocked three accounts for stalking. RFC was opened but the editors ironically voted to take neither side and turned the RFC into a personal attack. The RFC voted 2:0 to removal of LKML content into the LKML article. 11 others voted "we hate sockpuppets and we hate Jeff and we abstain from taking a position", then several of the editors embarked in perpetual user and user talk page vandalism on my user page. Based on this and Guanaco's attempts to resolve the dispute, mediation will be a waste of time.

See User_talk:Guanaco (archives) and User_Talk:Waya sahoni (archives), the accounts were blocked for stalking. Waya sahoni 04:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from User:Guanaco
I have blocked User:Why you so hawny? for stalking and reverting you (and the username). Let me know if this happens again. —Guanaco 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will get back to work on my Native Peoples article. I kind of have an idea know what its like to fight vandalism on this site now. Wow! Actually this was good for me to teach me to be calm and follow the rules through all of this. The system and Wikipedia's rules really do work after all! Waya sahoni 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sue me Jeff and User:Friendly neighbour are also blocked now. —Guanaco 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These accounts were blocked for stalking after I placed the Indigeneous Peoples tag into the talk page of the article. Waya sahoni 05:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waya sahoni 04:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party Waya sahoni

AUTHORITY is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey and WP:RS and

Principles
Biographies of living persons
1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that the biographies of living persons should be balanced and verifiable, Users are warned to be on the lookout for Malicious editing and take appropriate remedial measures.
Passed 7-0
Involvement in the event
2) Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Wikipedia article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with.
Passed 7-0
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
3) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Passed 7-0
Meatpuppets
5) A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
Passed 7-0


The Linux Kernel Mailing List, a public bulletin board that allows anonymous postings with forged email headers, is being used as both a primary and secondary source for the article Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. The tone and usage of these materials is injecting POV and low quality content into the article, and has been directly refuted as accurate by the subject of the article on the talk pages, Jeff.Wikipedia:Reliable sources bars the use of bulletin boards, weblog postings, and other unverifiable content except in articles about the subject itself LKML. This content should be removed from this article and placed into the LKML article where it belongs. Attempts to modify the content of the article and improve the quality of the article results in endless user page vandalism, stalking behavior, personal attacks, revert wars, and allegations of sockpuppetry against any editor that even goes near this article. I have created numerous articles of featured status and have provided photographs to be used in wikipedia from my multi-million dollar collection of rare Native American Antiquities to benefit wikipedia. I have setup a foundation to support Wikipedia Native Projects and I plant to donate as well as solicit funds in support of this project. See User:Waya sahoni for review of the quality content I have contributed to Wikipedia and assisted in improving. I opened an RFC on these issues with the editors to attempt to gain concensus. To date, the RFC has been ignored and I would like it possibly enforced. To date, many of the editors of that article have since been following me around the site simply to revert edits and post personal attacks on my talk page. This behavior amounts to stalking merely to revert and deface the contributions of another user.

There is no question that Jeff, based on his past interactions with Wikipedia, needs to work on his people skills and mend his bridges. Despite that, this isn't about being fair to the subject of the article, or even being "right" about the content, but is concerning factual use of reputable sources in article. The article is little more than a POV pushing match between the current editors, all of whom state on their talk pages they are from the SCOX message board or Linux Community here to POV push into the article and use their democratic power to enforce the content in the article. No amount of "democratic concesus" can make unverifiable materials verifiable or accurate. Additionally, the editors of the LKML after revewing the materials stated they were not "notable" for the LKML article. If they are not notable for a subject they profess to discuss, then they cannot be also notable in the subjects article (though this argument is also weak indeed since the LKML article only has three lines in it). Also, The SCOX message board appears to have "planted" several admins on this site whose job seems to be enforcing that article, and in fact wrote large portions of the content. User:Guanaco mediated some of this dispute and indefinitely blocked three of the editors from SCOX for stalking and harassment already. Many of the users in question have statements on their user and talk pages to the affec t they are here solely for the purpose of stalking the subject of the article. User:Pgk is an SCOX message board member hovering over the article as an implied threat against any editor who tries to improve it. And here is an example of Pgk's editing prowness off wikipedia [[33]].

I seek a temporary injunction against these editors for three months to stay away from that article long enough for me to attempt to bring it to featured article status. I also want a permanent injunction enforcing the RFC and the LKML content barred by WP:RS moved to LKML where it belongs and is allowed. I am not trying to remove the content from the encyclopedia, and in fact, it has a place in Wikipedia, but not in that article. And I am not Jeff, I just want to produce quality content for the encyclopedia without being stalked by these editors. Waya sahoni 04:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: If the all parties involved in the dispute agree to adhere to the cited AUTHORITIES and the previously ruled PRINCIPLES by the ARBCOM, I will withdraw the request for arbitration.

Signed Waya sahoni 07:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There have been comments that Jeff has legal matters pending against WP. Review of the case indicates only a single SCOX member named "petrofsky" has issues pending, and not WP. See [[34]]. Comments have also been made on talk pages by these same users my edits and discussions are disruptive. The only thing that has been disruptive is the perpetual user and user talk page vandalism by these editors and their meat and sockpuppet accounts. Their characterization of "disruptive" is an outside editor coming into the article and saying "the emperor has no clothes" meaning none of their trashy edits using LKML have any merit or are even verifiable. I can certainly see how interfering with their agenda to inject POV and smear that person would be viewed as disruptive of their anti-Wikipedia agenda. Outside editors have commented how slanted and POV the content is in this article. See [[35]].

Additionally, all of these editors (Lulu is an IBM employee/contractor on his user page) are SCOX/Linux members and are writing about these lawsuits involving SCOX, IBM and SCO in this article. This is and apparently has pulled wikipedia into the dispute since these folks are part of the event itself. None of them should be allowed to edit that article because it doing so, they are pulling wikipedia into the IBM/SCO lawsuits. I want to focus on Jeff's native accomplishments and involvement in tribal and utah politics regarding native american issues -- not a topic that will impact WP or make it part of the event. Wikipedia has suffered enough public controversy in allowing these types of editors to use it as a soapbox, and its ability to raise funds has been impacted as a result. These people need to post their POV LKML materials somewhere other than WP or should be confined to the LKML article as required by WP:RS. Waya sahoni 20:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE1: These users User:talks_to_birds, User:Vigilant and User:Kebron have been visiting a page of an IP address I use and posting sockpuppet allegations User:67.166.115.135. All of these users have done this at one time or another in this fiasco. This is their method of operating. Personal attacks, stalking, and harassment of anyone who goes near the article. This IP address has NEVER been used by Gadugi based upon checkUser. Not only are these people liars, they are stalkers as well. All of them are following me from article to article and either reverting or tagging most of my work. I am flattered to have such a fan club, but it's stalking and harassment. I want it stopped. Thanks. Waya sahoni 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BWD

First, I don't think I've ever edited the article in question with the exception of editing for grammar and spelling. So I have no idea why I'm listed as a party to this arbitration request. Second, this request is spurious and vindictive, as seen in the way User:Waya_sahoni listed the involved parties. Third, it has been proven on many talk pages (likely to be enumerated by the other involved parties), that User:Waya_sahoni is Jeff Merkey himself. He has been indefinitely blocked from wikipedia under other accounts for disruption involving the article in question. He's seeking an injunction to ban almost everyone from editing his own article except himself. Fourth, he's seeking that a malformed RfC be "enforced." He doesn't seem to understand what an RfC is. Lastly, the injunction sought is patently absurd. This incongruous request is wasting the time of the parties involved and arbcom's time. --BWD (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Regarding User:Waya_sahoni's allegation that we're all IBM employees or members of whatever message board he's ranting about: I've never been employed by IBM nor have I ever heard of whatever message board he's talking about. The level of paranoia this individual is showing is actually quite disturbing. --BWD (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by User:Crotalus horridus

This is a frivolous request that should be rejected by the Arbitration Committee. It's nothing more than an article content dispute. I happen to think that mailing list material is given undue weight in Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, but this is not a fit subject for arbitration, and there's no evidence that the normal editing process won't work here.

User:Waya sahoni also has misrepresented facts in the case. His characterization of the preceding RFC was false; most users who responded to it considered it malformed, frivolous, and possibly subject to deletion as a violation of policy. There's also no basis that I can see for the claim that User:Sue me Jeff or User:Why you so hawny? were banned for "stalking". The block log shows these both as username blocks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Much of the statement Waya sahoni makes is far outside anything I know anything about. Apparently there is something called the "SCOX message board" somewhere, and Waya sahoni believes that members of that other group are running Wikipedia, and conspiring against Jeff Merkey.

It appears to be the opinion of many editors on Wikipedia that Waya sahoni is, in fact, himself Jeff Merkey; Merkey was previously blocked while editing as User:Gadugi, and also as a number of other sockpuppets and IP addresses. I do not know whether or not Waya sahoni is Jeff Merkey, but he has at least stated on my talk page that they are familially related, are in close contact, and share a business. Some additional evidence suggests they share not only a domain name, but a specific email address and IP address as well. Waya sahoni has stated several times specifically that he is not Jeff Merkey, but Jeff Merkey while editing a few months ago stated the same thing numerous times (sometimes from the same user accounts in which he claimed to be Jeff Merkey).

Whatever his identity, Waya sahoni has made a concerted effort to disrupt editing on the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article, advancing one ruse after another to either remove relevant comment or add extraneous content; sometimes he has also simply edit warred against the essentially unanimous consensus of all other editors there. Outside that page, I have seen that s/he has added quite a bit of useful content, albeit much of it initially highly POV in tone (but s/he seems to be nudgeable in the direction of NPOV in the one article I've worked on at the same time as Waya sahoni: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians).

The so-called "RfC" that Waya sahohi alludes to was a page he wrote himself, hidden within article space rather than as an actual RfC. In that document, Waya sahoni posed equally untenable options to "vote" on, and the large majority of those editors who managed to locate the so-called RfC opined that the poll made no sense. Waya sahoni's options both stated that his very peculiar reading of Wikipeda policy were correct, then asked voters to "obey" or "disobey" supposed WP policy. There was an issue connected to this of referencing discussion that had occured involving Jeff Merkey on the LKML that has since been fairly widely referenced in other media. On that actual issue, a more straightforward quickpoll was taken at: Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Archive5#Fun_new_poll. In that, all editors other than Waya sahoni voted to cite the LKML posts that were germane to the biographical events (in only makes up a relatively small part of the article, but it is relevant to that part); it looks like 10 editors voted to basically keep the existing consensus on that article section, roughly the same editors named in this RfAr.

I believe that the best outcome for arbitration, should it be accepted, would be to bar Waya sahoni from editing the article on Jeff Merkey, but not to block the user account in general if s/he agrees to such terms. Whether or not the account belongs to Jeff Merkey himself, it is clearly someone close enough personally associated with Merkey as to violate WP:AUTO (which is, of course, only a guideline; but it is troublesome in cases where badly abused).

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 Pgk

As per others this is frivolous, it's a content dispute. Waya sahoni has spent his time attempting to harass other editors by insisting that almost any editor who disagrees with him is sent from SCOX. The RFC mentioned included a list of people who has been "identified" as SCOX members (quite how they were identified one is left to guess), this RFAr includes an assertion that I am an SCOX admin enforcer. (The logs show I have taken no admin actions regarding the article (nor has there been any suggestion that I will do), in fact when removing changes I've disagreed with I don't think I've even once used admin rollback). Similarly posts to WP:AN/I and the articles talk page contain similar vague allegations. He has also attempted to reveal what he believes to be personal information and make threats to other users [36]. Has threatened to use a 100 meatpuppets to "fix" the article [37]. As per above many believe him to be Merkey, he has at least admitted to being here on the behalf of Merkey [38]. Much of this I, and others, have turned a blind eye to as the edits to other articles appear to have been well received and the disruption was minimal. --pgk(talk) 11:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Waya sahoni's update! : "All of these users have done this at one time or another in this fiasco.", this is demonstrably false. I have never visited any user page of his and posted any sockpuppet allegations. I have not even commented on the general belief of his sockpuppetry on the article talk page, the only comment I have made regarding it is a few lines up. --pgk(talk) 07:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All of them are following me from article to article" This too is demonstrably false, I have not edited any other article or article talk page that Waya shoni is involved in, it should however be noted that Waya sahoni has previously invited the editors [39] to contribute to another article he was working on. As per above, Waya sahoni's continued baseless accusations towards me are nothing but a continuation of his harassment. --pgk(talk) 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vryl

Ummm. It's all pretty silly. Waya is Jeff. Jeff wants desparately to remove the embarrassing stuff from the wiki. I think it should be kept, and have made reasoned arguments to that effect. Jeff thinks people are stalking him. Maybe he is right at times. I was blocked by Jimbo (along with Jeff and his sockpuppets) at one stage (24 hours), and since then have been careful to try and be even handed, not let the blood rush to the head, and do what is best for the wiki. I have cautioned others not to bait Jeff. I don't have to be here, and if I am not wanted then I won't hang around. My contributions are pretty minimal, and I mostly just watch the JVM page to revert any whitewashing activities, which I still think is a positive contribution. Jeff's agenda is utterly transparent, at least mine has been written up on my page since I first got here. --Vryl 11:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kebron

I believe I am named here just because I have dare call Waya... Jeff. In his speach, I do not see my name mentioned, so I'll wait for precisions as to what I am doing here except agreeing with others research and facts that Waya is a sockepuppet of Jeff Merkey. --Kebron 12:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to his updated statement: "Additionally, all of these editors are SCOX/Linux members and are writing about these lawsuits involving SCOX, IBM and SCO in this article."... the closest reality to this statement is... I read about SCO on Groklaw. Waya's perceptions of reality bear a stricking ressemblance to Jeff Merkey in this matter. --Kebron 21:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aim Here

As everyone else says, this is a frivolous and vexatious request, but where to begin answering it? First off, Jeff is a notorious net.kook who went to great lengths to get a veto on the content in his own article, when he was editing under Gadugi and others. Gadugi was placed under a permanent block for legal threats against Wikipedia and/or disruption. The general consensus of opinion among folks familiar with Jeff is that waya is a sockpuppet of Gadugi/Merkey, based on inconclusive, but suggestive IP address evidence and on comparison of Jeff's and waya's behaviour.

Even in the highly unlikely event waya isn't Jeff's sockpuppet, he has carried on Jeff's crusade to impose his own POV on the article, with similar attempts at intimidation (accusing us all of vandalism, role accounts, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry,and threatening us with 57 varieties of admin enforcement, or even with an army of schoolchildren editing the article in Jeff's favour). The bogus and malformed RFC waya talks about had something like 2 votes voting for him, 13 votes voting for the only position not written by waya and which rejected the malformed RFC (the reason the 'neutral' position doesn't quite make sense is because waya rewrote the 'opposing' position, after 5 people had voted). This he wants 'enforced'. Fine, throw it in the bin.

It's telling that neither Jeff nor waya has actually disputed the veracity of authorship of the vast bulk of the LKML postings (although waya is clearly Jeff, or someone very close to him), but instead complains that the LKML material violates some thoeretical principle. He's disingenuously trying to delete material because of the potential for a factual dispute (although he doesn't actually dispute the facts as stated in the article).

As for the specific allegations against us, yes I have posted at the Yahoo SCOX! board. I've not been 'planted' here by anyone, and I'm not aware of any conspiracy of SCOX-posters against Jeff. Waya says I've been following him about the site - although I've ignored all but one of his non-Jeff-related edits, I have had to keep an eye on his 'User Contributions' page because of his propensity to restart this POV-war in unlikely places like this page, or LKML or the RFC. Waya has a very loose definition of 'personal attacks', at least when he's not the one making them, so I won't comment unless he actually shows some examples of them.

The meat of waya's complaint seems to be that I, and others, prevent him from deleting lots of material embarrassing to Jeff from the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article, and that, although there's no dispute that Jeff wrote almost all of his LKML postings (a handful were disclaimed by Jeff; that's mentioned in the article), this should be deleted on the principle that it wouldn't be good evidence if the authorship of the postings suddenly became disputed. Besides, Archimedes Plutonium and John Titor are two examples of articles largely sourced from internet postings, I'm sure there are more.

I believe that waya's request to block me from editing the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article is silly and frivolous, and should be rejected out of hand. On the other hand, WP:AUTO may be a guideline, but there are perhaps some cases when it needs 'enforcing' - when waya/Jeff go anywhere near that article, then it becomes a massive and disruptive sink of time, energy and effort for all concerned.Waya's edits away from the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article are nowhere near as disruptive, and are often very useful. I would suggest that instead of waya's suggestion of locking everyone but him out of the article, perhaps waya sahoni and any of Jeff's sockpuppets we unearth might be blocked from editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey for some large period of time. --Aim Here 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MediaMangler

Statement of Waya sahoni is disingenous at best. Most of the material he has sought to remove does not rely upon LKML posts for source at all. The LKML posts cited in the article have, with one exception, had their authorship acknowledged by Merkey.

There have been two related previous RFAr decisions: archive of first decision and archive of second. Both were rejected because of Merkey's legal threats. Those threats are still on-going. Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia were served twice[40][41] as part of a still pending lawsuit [42]. Merkey's motion reopening the case specifically requested the court to issue an order against Wikipedia.[43] The court has not yet ruled on that request nor has Merkey withdrawn it.

There can't be much doubt that Waya sahoni is Jeff Merkey. His behaviour has improved somewhat compared to his past record and some "constuctive engagement" was achieved, obtaining a few nuggets of information from him which have been incorporated into his bio (details concerning his Cheorokee name, his claims of military service), but he still can't seem to accept that he can't rewrite his past. — MediaMangler 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (updated — MediaMangler 20:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A CheckUser was requested against Waya sahoni and is currently listed in the February archives in the "Blocked" section. I don't pretend to understand the CheckUser process, so I don't understand why Waya sahoni has not already been blocked. — MediaMangler 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jerry

As only a minor player in this drama I don't have a lot to add to what has already been said. What started as a content dispute has developed into what we face today. Waya wants the content changed. The majority of the other editors disagree. Rather than accept that fact, Waya has used threats, name-calling, bogus RFCs and now an arbitration attempt to get his way. Therefore I believe this frivolous request should be rejected. --Jerry (Talk) 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:talks_to_birds

An important first point must be made as it establishes the context for most (if not all) of what is going on here.

Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey is User:Waya_sahoni.

In June of 2005, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey filed a civil lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Utah, Merkey vs Perrins et al, Case 2:05-CV-0521-DAK-SA. I was one of the named defendants in that case. In the course of researching and preparing my possible defense, I have become extremely familiar with the variety of issues that Merkey obsesses over, the way in which Merkey expresses himself, and the tactics Merkey uses when dealing with those people who attract his attention and who displease him. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and "Waya sahoni" are one and the same person. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia [44] as User:Gadugi.

The essential purpose of Merkey's lawsuit was to intimidate various individuals who had made note of Merkey's speech on the Linux Kernel Mail List, to compel those individuals into revising or deleting any references to himself that Merkey found unflattering, to generally prevent those individuals from exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment, and to serve as a warning to any others who might write about Merkey in a manner which he found unflattering that they would be added to the lawsuit by suddenly being designated as one of the "John Does 1-200" that Merkey held in reserve as a threat.

Turning to the issue at hand, it is ironic in the extreme (although not uncommon in close encounters with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) that "Waya sahoni" attempts to discredit unflattering references to himself (which he himself authored) on the Linux Kernel Mail List by characterising the LKML as "unverifiable content", all the while "Waya sahoni" posts libelous pejoratives on Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief) for which "Waya sahoni" offers no more corroboration than an alleged "book" for which there is no ISBN number; for which a Google search finds no reference to either the title or the author; and for which another Wikipedia editor User_talk:Aim_Here apparently searched the Library of Congress and found no mention whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#Disputed

As is typical for Merkey, a strategy or statement that he makes in one context can be completely denied, reversed or contradicted in another context, as suits his motives for each. If there is any consistency anywhere to what Merkey says, it is that anything he says will be denied or contradicted as the situation changes.

The LKML is a highly technical mail list which details the most specific points of Linux kernel development, both in terms of the C code itself, and limited discussions of Linux's philosophical evolution. One technical aspect of the LKML is that, for every post by every author http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/7/270, the LKML makes available the full, original email headers for reference http://lkml.org/lkml/headers/2004/10/7/270.

Merkey/sahoni's attempted assertion that the LKML "allows anonymous postings with forged email headers" is ludicrous and Merkey has offered no facts to substantiate his assertion. Even so, the posting history of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey shows a direct, one-to-one correlation between his posts, the computer host name of origin, the IP (Internet Protocol) address of origin (both as shown in the full email headers available for each post), and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's employment history.

There can be no question whatsoever that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey made the posts which bear his name. The only problem here is that Merkey now, and for at least the past year, has been engaged in a desparate attempt to revise history, to force the deletion of any references to his utterances that he can by threat of legal action, and to characterize those who see through his game-playing and who expose him for what he is as "Internet Stalkers, Intellectual Property Thieves, and Internet Libelers". http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2006-01/10-22:01/index.html

The verifiable posts which Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has made over the years to the LKML certainly do not paint Merkey in a flattering light. These posts are, however, highly significant as part of the historic record of the Linux kernel itself, and as an historic record of broader, important issues which have faced the Linux kernel and its development.

As much as Merkey wants to delete the historic record of his participation in the LKML, that record is meaningfull in any article about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey on Wikipedia as it represents his most publicly-visible face on the LKML, unflattering to him as it may be.

The current references to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's verified posts to the LKML are meaningful to any discussion of Merkey, should be retained in the context of the Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey article, and should not be deleted or moved to the LKML article itself. -- talks_to_birds 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by talks_to_birds
It needs to be pointed out that over and over and over again, we have the strongest circumstantial proof that "Waya sahoni" is Jeff Merkey -- a position that is held by virtually every single other person who is involved in any detail with the many issues surrounding "Waya sahoni".
What background or experiences does "Waya sahoni" possess that would cause him to categorize his critics here as "SCOX and Linux Editors"? What background or experiences could *anyone* possess that would cause them to categorize someone as "SCOX and Linux Editors"?
Why does "Waya sahoni" even use such bizarre phrases (with the not-so-subtle implication of some dark conspiracy) as "SCOX and Linux Editors"? What exactly *is* an "SCOX and Linux Editors"? Even if it (or they) are something beyond a shadow in "Waya sahoni's" paranoia, what is so bad about them?
His User:Waya_sahoni user page suggests absolutely no realtionship to computers, computing, Linux, SCOX, the LKML, etc etc, and yet "Waya sahoni" consistently obsesses over Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey like it was a life-and-death issue to him.
What *is* "Waya sahoni's" connection to Merkey?
I'll give you one guess.
Additionally, how is it that although "Waya sahoni" insists "This user lives in Texas" on his user page, those IP (Internet Protocol) addresses that can be *clearly* associated with "Waya sahoni" are homed in Utah?
Someone is lying, here.
Again, I'll give you one guess.
And again, that's classic Merkey. -- talks_to_birds 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside [?] statement by User:Friendly Neighbour

I want to correct some facts about my two previous accounts which allegedy stalked User:Waya sahoni. He claims the reason they were banned was stalking him. It's simply not true. The first User:Sue me Jeff was blocked with "username block". I do agree that the name was stupid and probably broke Wikipedia rules (although I was unaware of thet when creating the account). However it could be offensive to Waya sahoni only if he is actually named Jeff. As far as I am aware of he never claimed that.

My second account User:Friendly neighbour was blocked for an invented crime (that is not-existent on Wikipedia rule page): account created for the sole purpose of stalking another user. It is easy to check that that account never stalked anyone. Certainly not Waya sahoni as I did not even touch his User Pager or Talk Page with the account (though I did once revert a deletion of Sockpuppet warning put there by another user with the first account). This means I had the new account blocked indefinitely by Guanaco for making one revert on Waya sahoni page with my previous account.

The other account blocked (chronologically the first one) for allegedly stalking Waya sahoni was not mine. I probably paid for his (committed or not) crimes with my account.

Therefore the statement that three account were banned for stalking Waya sahoni may be almost true. Except that one of them was blocked (not banned!) for its name only and another was blocked simply because Guanaco suspected it could start stalking Waya sahoni.

This is my only input into this matter. I do not intend to touch neither the page of Waya sahoni not Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article, not even with a 10 ft pole. Friendly Neighbour 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I realized that I had been originally listed by Waya sahoni as a party (in fact twice) but later both my blocked accounts were deleted from the list by another editor. Therefore I may be a party. Therefore, I state that I am not and never were connected to neither IBM or SCO. I do read (and sometimes contribute) to both the Yahoo SCOX board and Groklaw site but I am not part (nor aware of) any conspiracy against Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, Waya sahoni or Wikipedia. Friendly Neighbour 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OneNamelessCat

If anyone should be prohibited from editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, it is User:Waya_sahoni himself. His assertion that he tried to reach consensus is disingenuous. On the contrary, virtually all of his activity with regard to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey demonstrates utter and complete disregard for consensus. For example, both the results of the malformed RFC and of the later poll should make it patently obvious what the consensus is: that Waya's interpretation of WP policies is wrong and that the material he wants removed from the article should stay there. Instead of accepting that consensus, User:Waya_sahoni declared that his opponents' opinions shouldn't count ([45], [46], [47], [48]), in part based on ad-hominem arguments not supported by any evidence ([49], [50], [51], [52]), misrepresented their votes ([53]), then went ahead and edited the article against consensus ([54]).

The assertion that all of the current editors state on their talk pages that they are here to push POV is pure fabrication, as can be ascertained by checking the talk pages in question. For example, my talk page states nothing of the kind, and never has.

Additionally, User:Waya_sahoni uses WP:RS as a pretext. As these edits ([55], [56]) show, his real intent is to purge the article of negative information about the subject, not limited to LKML posts. No matter how many times User:Waya_sahoni denies it, there is persuasive evidence that he is a reincarnation of User:Gadugi. Even if he weren't, one would have to conclude, based on his behavior, that he is an alter ego of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. --OneNamelessCat 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJ

I am not entirely sure why we are dragged here again over Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (see the previous rejected case). User:Waya sahoni has made few attempts at resolving the conflicts, apart from the flawed RFC. I and other editors certainly have tried to resolve the disputes that occurred, using straw polls ([57] [58] [59]) and attempts at explaining to User:Waya sahoni that no RFC could be used as a mandate to ignore consensus ([60] [61]).

User:Waya sahoni has however continued to throw the WP process into disarray, and I find this ArbCom request to be vindictive and another attempt to disrupt, and to push through his POV on the article, and his views of the use of LKML posts in it. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey vs. Petrofski and WikiMedia

Above, Waya claims that the Merkey litigation isn't against the WikiMedia Foundation, only against Petrofski. If so, Merkey certainly intended it to be against WMF as well, see the original certificate of service (2005-10-31). These summons were sent after Mr. Merkey had the case reopened to determine wether or not the sealing of a settlement in a different case applied to parties outside of that settlement as well; Mr. Merkey accused WikiPedia of publishing that settlement.

I see no evidence that the WMF was ever dropped from that case. In fact, on 20 January, Merkey certainly believed the case still had bearing on WP, witnessing a set of edits claiming the award of damages against WMF and a gloat about an order being served on the editor's page whom reverted the first edit. No such order was ever issued, although a demand for similar damages has been entered on January 23 by Mr. Merkey against Petrofski.

I'd say that without evidence to the contrary, WMF is still part of the court case. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Great. I am not Jeff, so none of this is relevant. Waya sahoni 02:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To look at the Electronic Case Filing System for the District of Utah where I have an account, it seems the only documents posted after Merkey-Perens-40.pdf are these:
Filed & Entered: 02/23/2006
Add and Terminate Judges
Full docket text:
Judge Paul M. Warner added. Judge Samuel Alba no longer assigned to case. (cas)

and: 

Filed & Entered: 02/23/2006
Motions Referred
Full docket text for document 41:
MOTIONS [40] MOTION for Default Judgment as to defendant(s) Alan P. Petrofsky
MOTION to Amend/Correct [1] Complaint, [30] MOTION for Order to Show Cause
REFERRED to Judge Paul Warner. (cas)
So there would not seem to be anything that's removed WMF from Merkey's latest whatever-it-is he's doing. -- talks_to_birds 16:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vigilant

Waya sahoni is clearly a sockpuppet for Jeff Merkey who was indefinitely blocked as user Gadugi. His use of another account to circumvent an active block is a violation of WP:SOCK. I find it hard to credit that any action initiated by a sockpuppet should carry any weight. Vigilant 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Locke Cole, David Levy, et al

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Netoholic

Locke Cole and I disagree on several technical points. Beyond that, though, Locke has taken great steps to make my experiences on this wiki hellish, to say the least. I feel like he is stalking me, both by directly reverting items he's never been involved in before and by involving himself on the opposite side of every topic I comment on. He looks for ways to discredit me, he pours gasoline on the fires of the most minor conflicts, and generally is doing everything he can to ensure I have the most miserable experience possible on this wiki. I do not make these statements lightly. As I have previously been involved in Arb cases, I'll tell you honestly, I am scared to come before the ArbCom again and would happily avoid it if I could. Locke Cole's actions have become so malicious, that I cannot avoid this any longer.

I previously made a report about wiki-stalking by Locke COle on 06:25, 4 February 2006, for which he was blocked. Recently, he's been spending almost his whole time here attacking me in several ways, both obvious and subtle. He is reviewing my contribs extremely frequently (which is not bad on its own), but then using that information to find ways to confound me... even when I act in good faith or on topics he's never been involved.

  • Leet - several times, Locke Cole has reverted changes to this article - one he'd never edited before. When it was recently moved to a disambiguated title, he even voted opposing my request to move it back. It's hard to believe anyone would think, after fair consideration, that a disambiguated title is appropriate. He voted to screw with me.
  • I made a 3RR report about another editor. Locke Cole commented on it, but only to poison the well.
  • I created a template design guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates on 20:34, 7 March 2006, unfinished, and still very much in draft form. Eight minutes later, Locke Cole moved the page to my userspace without asking me, and using a snide summary.
  • Even though he knows that Arbitrators have clarified my restrictions (that admins should only block me for disruption, rather than strict interpretation), he reported some recent edits of mine to WP:ANI at 05:05, 9 March 2006. At that exact minute, User:David Levy blocked me. This was a coordinated action, as it is implausible in the extreme that this was a coincidence.

Locke has previously recruited others to do similar things, often through IRC channels. I'm listing David Levy as "involved" as I feel like he's acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions, and probably deserves at least a reprimand. He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week, despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements. He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.

Please take this case, as this sort of persistent bullying is unfair to anyone. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

Well, I want to start off by saying that Netoholic is wrong. There's no concerted effort to "get him", and certainly no coordination between David Levy and I. I'll address his four allegations, then detail why I think the Arbitration Committee should accept this to discuss Netoholic's behavior since his last appearance here.

  • Leet is an article I've kept an eye on since I started here. Being a longtime BBS user, I'm familiar with the subject matter (see my edits to similar subject matter, for example, Major BBS and MajorMUD). Further, Netoholic notes that I voted oppose to his requested move, but he doesn't note that I changed my vote to support after considering the matter more fully. [62]
  • My comment on the 3RR was to point out that he shouldn't even be editing as he was. His edits were disruptive, and his attempt to get Madchester (talk · contribs) blocked for 3RR flies in the face of the fact that he shouldn't have been revert warring to begin with. That's not poisoning the well.
  • Yes, I moved it shortly after its creation because it was a fork of WP:AUM in large part. If the issue is that I was aware he created the page, that's because he'd just reverted a large number of my template namespace edits, and I was using his contribs to see if he'd reverted any others. Note also that the page is currently on MFD (nominated by another editor), and the overwhelming consensus is for deletion (as a fork). See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates.
  • Netoholic would like you to believe David Levy and I are out to get him, but if you take a look at the exact times of the two incidents, you'll see that I made my posting to WP:AN/I after David Levy blocked Netoholic:
  • Why would I report him on AN/I after David Levy blocked if our actions were coordinated? I wouldn't. It's senseless.

I will freely admit that Netoholic frustrates me. He frustrates me because he seems to have a near obsession with meta-templates. He frustrates me because, despite being under an ArbCom ban against editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespace, he persistently edit wars with me over things that he can't really justify. And his behavior has only worsened. In the last week he's reverted very nearly every edit to the Template namespace I've made (often repeatedly):

[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].

And he's also done this to other editors, such as CBDunkerson (talk · contribs) back in late-January:

[83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110].

I also feel he may be stalking me:

  • [111] — Here he reverts me on a template he's never edited before.
  • [112], [113] — In the first diff, I make an edit to the template. In the second diff (29 minutes later), Netoholic, who hasn't edited this template since 2005-12-18, makes an edit to it as well.

Brion VIBBER has made clear that meta-templates are not a problem currently (at least not for server load reasons) [114]. He's made clear that the CSS hack Netoholic has pushed on the community is bad. [115] I would like the Arbitration Committee to accept this case and consider Netoholic's actions these past few months and whether or not they're really good for the encyclopedia.

Statement by David Levy

Firstly, I addressed my initial block of Netoholic (and Snowspinner's unblock) in great detail here. I request that you read that discussion in its entirety.

Secondly, there is no "coordination" between Locke Cole and me. I did, however, notice his complaint on Netoholic's talk page, and this led me to investigate Netoholic's actions and issue a block (as I warned would occur, because Netoholic complained that I provided no specific warning on the previous occasion). It isn't surprising that Locke Cole was preparing a message for WP:ANI at the same time, and I'm astounded that Netoholic would paint this as a conspiracy. If Locke Cole and I were in cahoots, why would he post a public message at the same time that I was doing his bidding (which, I assume, is Netoholic's allegation)?

I'm told that Netoholic arrived at #wikipedia a short time later, claiming that he had been unfairly blocked. I was online at the time, but Zscout370 decided to unblock without informing me, and I didn't notice this until much later. (Zscout370 apologized, and he indicated that he now has a better understanding of the situation.)

Last night (my time), Netoholic once again ignored his ArbCom ruling and the aforementioned stance of our lead developer, this time with the explanations "hiddenStructure is not so bad" and "rvt user needs to take a vacation." (The second instance violated both his ban from the template namespace and his "one revert per page per day" restriction.) Therefore, I issued a new block. I announced this on IRC, and I waited around for as long as I could (expecting Netoholic to show up), but I eventually needed to call it a day. It was while I was sleeping that Netoholic convinced Freakofnurture (who attempted to contact me) to lift the block.

I'm very disappointed by the apparent belief that no admin should ever block the same user twice. I happen to be highly acquainted with Netoholic's case and the hiddenStructure matter, so I'm capable of quickly assessing the situation. The primary purpose of blocking is to halt disruption as soon as possible. Unless there's evidence that I'm unfairly issuing blocks with no legitimate basis, it's unreasonable to expect me to engage in the bureaucratic process of attempting to explain this highly complicated issue to an unfamiliar admin (with Netoholic engaging in disruptive misconduct all the while).

Despite Netoholic's implications to the contrary, his ArbCom-imposed restrictions have not been lifted. During the meta-template scare, some ArbCom members indicated that they should be enforced only when he's being disruptive (a stance with which I strongly agreed, because it appeared as though he was doing important work). The problem is that Netoholic insists that none of his edits are disruptive, and he uses these statements as blanket permission to behave however he pleases. Similar to the manner in which he abused his mentorships (eventually dissolved), he's exploiting his ArbCom parole as a means of getting away with more than what any other user would be permitted to do. If someone blocks, he misconstrues this as a literal interpretation of his restrictions, even if the violation in question was severe enough to warrant a block for any user (irrespective of an ArbCom ruling). He's basically managed to construct immunity from administrative intervention.

I'm attempting to remedy this situation by enforcing Netoholic's restrictions when the circumstances dictate. (I have not blocked him for technically violating the letter of the ruling.) Unless it was the ArbCom's intention that Netoholic be permitted to revert war in the template namespace by repeatedly inserting harmful code, I don't see how any of my actions have been inappropriate. —David Levy 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adrian Buehlmann

  • Netoholic is the only one of those that care to bother with WP:AUM who persistently opposes to have a Mediawiki built-in conditional function, despite Brion Vibber having stated that it would be good to have it and signaling support to do so.
  • It would be good if the arbcom could review its stance on this matter, as Netoholic repeatedly insinuates that he acts on behalf of the arbcom, due to the fact that some current or prior arbcom members implicitly seem to support his actions and his behaviour.
  • Brion Vibber has removed the policy tag from WP:AUM and the community rejected it and its forks. Netoholic constantly ignores this as he believes he must reinstate some "sanity" against the will of the "misguided" community.
  • Netoholic is a tremendous wikipedian-hours resource hog. The least that the arbcom can do with this request is reject it. I cannot see any bad behavior on the side of David Levy and Locke Cole. This is not a simple content dispute and as such an admin that takes care to block Netoholic has to have some understanding of the underlying technical matter. As such it cannot be expected that outside admins do understand what's going on here without a lot of research about the technical details.
  • This is a very complicated technical matter that an average wikipedian has problems to understand and thus prefers to stay out of it. But this doesn't mean we can leave it to Netoholic alone. Let the community handle this, we can do it. The arbcom should from now on stay out of this.

Reference: [116]

Statement by Avriette

I have been asked to comment on this matter. I think the discussion at Leet (et al.) is a different matter, although Netoholic's behavior there is consistent with the behavior mentioned here. The term "wikipedian hours" is apt. I have spent dozens of hours replying to intractable arguments on his behalf, and un-reverting systematically reverted changes (mind you, rarely more than once a day). I am very interested in hearing a "revisiting" of his previous requests for arbitration as his behavior continues to be disruptive. It has been posited that he is less disruptive than he used to be. This is not to say that he is not presently disruptive. Being more disruptive in the past is not an excuse for being disruptive in the present.

Netoholic was originally reprimanded and assigned mentorship. This was in lieu of a ban on editing the Wikipedia and Template namespace. However, this mentorship broke down [117] [118]

While there may have been an "exception" granted [119], no such exception was granted for disruptive editing or 1RR. Netoholic continues to mix the two publicly -- saying he is not to be blocked for "technical violations" of the probation. This probation applied only to the Template and Wikipedia namespace. Not, for example, the main articlespace. [120]

A facet of the 2nd ArbCom resolution [121], the prohibition to engage in personal attacks (specifically proscribed for this user, but of course proscribed in general) was granted no such exception, and indeed has continued. What is surprising about the continued attacks is that they take on the same quality as the previous attacks [122] [123]:

  1. [124]
  2. [125]
  3. [126]


Lastly, with possibly one exception, I believe all parties involved in this request for arbitration are capable of accepting the comments from a request for comment. I think bringing an RFAr is perhaps a little too early.

Statement by Omegatron

Netoholic has been consistently disruptive, uncivil, and willfully ignorant of consensus since he decided his ban was too inconvenient to be held to anymore. Unfortunately, he's chosen to continue in the same behavior that got him banned in the first place, and these blocks are necessary to keep the wiki running smoothly.

I'd block him myself, but I can't follow him around without redlining my wikistress level. His ability to sweet talk his way out of egregious policy violations when authority's looking is astonishing, and his tactic of "poisoning the well", as he puts it, with regard to anyone who tries to stop his destructive activities is intimidating. I'm impressed by David and Locke's courage and patience.

Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin.

The most positive comment I've seen about his behavior since the mentorship failed is Snowspinner's comment that his current disruptions are not as bad as the "the sort of shit he used to pull".

It was nice and quiet around here for a few months; we could actually get work done without fighting perpetual battles against his never-compromising crusades and self-declared policies. Ideally, Neto's ban from editing in the Template: namespace will be re-instated and prolonged, so the rest of us can get back to writing an encyclopedia. — Omegatron 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Crotalus horridus

Netoholic combines a remarkably high level of revert warring, especially over templates and policies, with a remarkably low number of actual article contributions. To put it bluntly, he spends most of his time fighting with other editors rather than building the encyclopedia. This is disruptive behavior. I see no reason why the original Arbcom remedy (1RR plus a ban from the Wikipedia: and Template: namespaces) should not be enforced and extended. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zscout370

I just wish for the ArbCom to note that the 4th block on Netoholic in that one week span was performed by me after a notice on WP:AN/I was posted, but I lifted it hours later since I felt like a short block was only sufficient. As it was noted earlier, I unblocked one of David's blocks, and while I did issue an apology to david, I suggested to him, Locke and Neto to bring the issue here. I also agree that the current ArbCom sanctions are still in play until May of this year, I welcome the chance for ArbCom to take a hard look at this. I have no vested outcome in this case, but mainly to fill the gaps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson

The basic dispute here is that both Netoholic and Locke Cole view the other as 'stalking' them and hampering their efforts to 'contribute to / defend Wikipedia'. Both are proceeding largely 'in good faith' with occaisional lapses in civility due to frustration. The true problem is that what Netoholic thinks is good for Wikipedia seems harmful to Locke Cole and vice versa. That said, it seems to me clearly established that the majority of the community agrees with Locke Cole's view: that the harmful effects of meta and/or conditional templates are minor and the harmful effects of banning them or replacing them with hiddenStructure are significant. This also seems to be largely consistent with statements by Brion. I don't doubt that Netoholic thinks he is doing what is best. I also don't doubt that he is wrong... but even if he were correct and the community not, still it would be a bad idea for him to continue to attempt to enforce his opinion against the majority. The same applies to the 'Leet' controversyand various others, people disagree... but one person should not attempt to over-rule all others by sheer obstinance. The 'persecution' Netoholic feels would end if he stopped driving against the traffic... even if we assume he is 'right', driving on the left is more efficient, still he is clearly wrong to insist on doing so when everyone else is going the other way. --CBDunkerson 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Everyking probation

Does the arbcom continue Everyking's continual grandstanding on the talk page of RFAr to claim that he was unjustly punished for opposing an injustice to be a violation of his sanction and parole? It seems to me that he is saying, every time he claims that the ruling was in gross error, that his opposition of me was necessary and important. Thus his continual grandstanding amounts to a never-ending forum to continue his crusade against me, only with a mild veneer of subtlety. But, obviously, I'm biased, so I wanted to get the arbcom's two cents before I started complaining. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII probation

Due to frequent, problematic disruption of the admin's noticeboard, such as reporting month old vandalism by a user he was engaged in a dispute with and repeatedly shouting, I considered banning RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the page under the terms of his probation. However, the decision spefically uses the word "article"- Would this ban be covered by the probation, or would an amendment of the previous decision be necessary for a ban to take effect?--Sean Black (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with this, as it's in line with the spirit of our ruling. If he's being disruptive, he ought to be banned from it. RJII doesn't seem to be getting our message, however. You may want to bring consider, on AN, enacting the general probation for an appropriate length of time. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given this, I have done so. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI Essjay Talk • Contact 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair

Can anything be done about this user's constant blanking of his Talk page, including the removal of legitimate warnings and ArbCom notifications? I was very surprised this wasn't addressed in his ArbCom case and believe an additional injunction regarding it would be the least that would be appropriate. (Frankly I'm not actually sure why he isn't hard-banned; it's difficult to imagine a better example of someone who is a net negative to Wikipedia. But one step at a time, I guess.) PurplePlatypus 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's blocked, the page can be protected, though I don't think people blanking their own talk pages is usually something to take action on. Inquire at WP:ANI. As above, if you think an indefinite block, or hardbanning, is appropriate at this point, raise the issue on WP:ANI; the conditions of his probation state: "Any three administrators may impose a partial or general ban up to and including an indefinite ban for good cause". Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JarlaxleArtemis

CarlHewitt

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood 3

Instantnood has made a request [127] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing the matter here SchmuckyTheCat. Members of the ArbCom should have recognised I was not able to submit a statement when they opened the case. I understand that my statement is not a prerequisite, and the case can still be opened in the absence of my statement. Yet this should only be done when I refused to submit one, or ignored requests directed to me. This did not happen. I wanted to submit one, but my right was suspended. — Instantnood 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, by Instantnood statement, I believe that we should stop the process of the case (currently at Proposed decision) and wait for Instantnood's argument, then re-consider all the given evidences and come up with another conclusion, similar or different. Deryck C. 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dyslexic agnostic case

Is the arbcom passing the 6 month ban as a motion because a lot of the votes there appear to be second choice votes and its not made clear by the exisiting pageBenon 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case

The arbcom recently placed all three on probation, the latter over usage of sources, the former two over edit warring on the issue of allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality in articles. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on the issue of sources because I do not have access to US biographies and magazines and so cannot prove either accuracy or inaccuracy. I have had to block both Wilkes and Wyss, the former a number of times, for clear breaches of their prohibition on editing biographical articles on allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality. The latter seens to have quit WP in a huff as a result. Wilkes however, while not editing articles, is using talk pages to mispresent onefortyone's probation by alleging that Onefortyone was convicted of lying by the arbcom. See also here. In fact the decision of the arbcom related to the reliability of sources, not lies.

Probation explicitly mentions articles. That could be interpreted narrowly to include just the article and not the talk page, or broadly to include the talk page, given that the talk page discusses and shapes the contents of the article. The arbcom ruling explicitly uses the word "broadly". Does this mean that three admins may also impose restrictions on the edits placed in talk pages dealing with the areas (homosexuality and bisexuality) that Wilkes is prohibited from editing. Wilkes has clearly breached Wikipedia ettiquette but has he breached the implicit conditions of his probation by posting allegations that another user who was the subject of an arbcom ruling is a "convicted liar" when that is a distortion of the arbcom ruling? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=43750365"