Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BWD (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 20 March 2006 (→Outside Statement by [[http://www.wikigadugi.org | Wikigadugi Project]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clerk notes

This application has been moved to the case page because of its bulk. Please avoid adding material that merely duplicates what has been said before.
The page is already 68 kilobytes. Consider instead making a comment on the discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precis

Waya sahoni requests an injunction of three months against certain parties editing the article Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, on the grounds that they injected poorly sourced content. Respondents claimed for the most part that this was a frivolous, disingenuous or ridiculous request. Some stated that they believed that Waya sahoni was actually Jeffrey Vernon Merkey himself. Waya sahoni withdrew the request for arbitration.
Fred Bauder voted to accept, primarily to consider whether the information in the article was adequately sourced, but also to consider the editing of Waya sahoni. He added "I think we need an affirmation of intent to avoid autobiographical editing, if a complete ban is to be avoided". Jdforrester and Dmcdevit have also voted to accept.
Waya Sahoni has stipulated that he is prepared to undergo a voluntary ban from editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in the form of a joint agreement with arbcom. He requests that the other involved editors be similarly banned from the article but be permitted to make contributions to the article's talk page, and that anyone who has stated that he's "here to stalk Jeff Merkey" be banned from following Waya sahoni or Jeffrey Merkey around Wikipedia to revert or deface their edits.

Currently there are three Arbitrator acceptance votes, no recusals, no rejections.

Last updated by --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 19 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]

You did not provide a link to this page. Vigilant 20:30, 14 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]

So the sum total of other dispute resolution was to have several accounts blocked?! Is that really sufficient? Vigilant 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party Waya sahoni

I hereby withdraw this request for arbitration. It is clear based upon my review of the ages and experience of the ARBCOM members, this is an issue which may be outside of their experience and ability to handle beyond a "scorched earth" response. With the single exception of Fred Bauder, whose credentials are indeed impressive, I have serious doubts the arbiters can deal with the virtriolic and potentially dangerous situation dealing with that article and the purported notorious nature of its subject. I have materials to add to the article and while these editors are clearly stalkers and POV pushers, I must deal with them within the framework of WP policies in order to obtain resolution, and hope that the system and rules will work for the benefit of all. I also don't feel the current community or adminitrators have been doing their job in this area with the single exception of User:Guanaco regarding the stalking behavior of these accounts. If Jeff wants a final resolution beyond my meager efforts to resolve the POV issues with that article, they must come from outside of Wikipedia and he must initiate them from the outside, and not through me. I have a role within Wikipedia and that's not as Jeff's advocate. I respectfully ask one of the admins to unblock Jeff's Talk page at User:Gadugi (and only his talk page) so I and other editors can contact him and request his presence to address the factual disputes related to the article. The basis for my decision to withdraw this request is as follows:

':Since Merkey is not only notable but notorious, some of the article's frequent editors have, not surprisingly, been only too gleeful to lard it with each new crumb of dirt which can be dug up to smear Merkey with. Whether or not he deserves it, Wikipedia policy obviously precludes that kind of POV slant in one of its articles. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) '[reply]

It must work through the rules or Jeff needs to address the issues from outside of Wikipedia.

Request Withdrawn. Waya sahoni 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone. You started an arbcom and I want someone in a position of administrator to take a look at your using the wikipedia dispute resolution system as a mechanism for punishing people who won't kowtow to your whims. Vigilant 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just give it a miss. You are starting to sound as shrill as Waya/Jeff. Be thankful that it is going away. Or put a respectful arbcom in yourself. --Vryl 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify my own statement which has been quoted above, note that I referred in that statement only to some of "the article's frequent editors". Most (though not quite all) of the editors of that article are reasonable people who have been following Wikipedia's policies admirably, policies which will, in time, result in a fair and balanced article despite any agendas which might be pushed -- from either side. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mighty impressive piece of prose, Waya_sahoni. Impressive indeed. Too bad it violates nearly every aspect of WP:NPA. --BWD (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like he deleted the part of his comment that I was referring to. That's helpful, I suppose. --BWD (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so I and other editors can contact him and request his presence to address the factual", this is totally unnecessary, Waya sahoni has claimed to have had phone calls, received amount of material on the Cherokee culture, and has also stated he has been in email communications, quite how unprotecting a wikipedia page will enhance his communications is difficult to understand. Merkey is quite capable of communicating with Waya sahoni and providing properly cited and verifiable sources for his factual corrections. --pgk(talk) 07:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[1]].

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 [[2]]. 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 [[3]].

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]

Further statement by Waya sahoni, 19:58, 16 March

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)[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).

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 [4]. Has threatened to use a 100 meatpuppets to "fix" the article [5]. As per above many believe him to be Merkey, he has at least admitted to being here on the behalf of Merkey [6]. 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 [7] 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[8][9] as part of a still pending lawsuit [10]. Merkey's motion reopening the case specifically requested the court to issue an order against Wikipedia.[11] 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 [12] 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.166.115.135 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.177.11.129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.177.35.222 -- check User Contributions for each) 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 ([13], [14], [15], [16]), in part based on ad-hominem arguments not supported by any evidence ([17], [18], [19], [20]), misrepresented their votes ([21]), then went ahead and edited the article against consensus ([22]).

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 ([23], [24]) 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 ([25] [26] [27]) and attempts at explaining to User:Waya sahoni that no RFC could be used as a mandate to ignore consensus ([28] [29]).

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]

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]

Outside (?) statement by BluePlatypus

Waya sahoni claims there was a consensus to move stuff from the Jeff Merkey article into the LKML article. There was no such consensus. I got involved in trying to end the edit-war on the LKML article, by removing the disputed content Waya Sahoni had cut-and-pasted from the Merkey article. Waya Sahoni accused me of page-blanking and vandalism on my talk page, to which I responded by putting a merge tag in the appropriate place in the Merkey article, and calling for a discussion.

Noone agreed with Waya Sahoni's view that the materials should be merged. Waya, however, called the vote "invalid", and has repeatedly claimed here and elsewhere that WP:RS dictates that the content be moved to the LKML article, despite the fact that no other editors seem to agree with that sentiment. He hasn't given any explanation to why this would be the case, either. At least not any that I've been able to understand. --BluePlatypus 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Natalinasmpf

I'm glad Waya sahoni has spent so much time improving articles on Cherokee culture, but I think this entire thing is frivolous and ridiculous. Firstly, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium over the entire thing about punishing people for using the wrong sources. The arbitration committee is out to resolve disputes and to implement remedies for inappropriate behaviour. If an editor believes that a certain source is authoritative enough, and this is disputed, the edits may be removed but the editor cannnot be attacked for it (and furthermore, it should only be pursued if edit warring occurs). However, by listing so many parties, it appears that much of the edit warring by one side is among only one person or two, and therefore, the plaintiff probably needs to have a remedy when closely examined. I want to encourage Waya sahoni to keep up the great work about the Cherokee, but I strongly think that his actions in order to excise information from the article is adbominable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by Steve Summit

I observed the conflict on the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article for a time. Several things are clear:

  1. The disputed "LKML" material is appropriate for the article. It concerns a noteworthy event which received significant media attention at the time, namely Merkey's offer to "buy" a snapshot of the Linux kernel source for $50,000. The mailing list messages which Waya Sahoni disputes are not being used as "primary or secondary sources" in contravention of Wikipedia policy; they are in fact part of the subject under discussion. That those messages occurred is a verifiable fact; I believe the article already cites some outside media accounts.
  2. The RfC which Sahoni conducted on this issue was, quite clearly, fatally flawed and carries no weight, for the reasons which have already been mentioned.
  3. Sahoni has been acting erratically and in generally poor faith in his editing of the Merkey article.
  4. The editors he's in competition with are not all saints, either. Though Merkey is a notable figure who (I believe) deserves an article, its current state is lousy. (Any mention of bringing it up to featured article status is a bad joke.) Since Merkey is not only notable but notorious, some of the article's frequent editors have, not surprisingly, been only too gleeful to lard it with each new crumb of dirt which can be dug up to smear Merkey with. Whether or not he deserves it, Wikipedia policy obviously precludes that kind of POV slant in one of its articles.

—Steve Summit (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by Swatjester

I've come across Waya through seeing his name blacklisted on the IRC bot for some other violation. I noticed him making a MASS number of edits to the Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) article. He appears to be pushing the article in a very POV direction. While assuming good faith, the number of edits done to the article in a short span of time also feel fishy.

This is just an outside comment to cast some light on the user: He's raised some hackles on my neck, and if you're questioning whether he's got a history of POV edits, I'd think this article should say yes.

Update: He has however, made attempts to neutralize the POV in that article. Take it how you will. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Statement by [| Wikigadugi Project]

We have observed stalking of Waya sahoni externally and the evidenced behavior seems most aggregious, and potentially unlawful based on real world laws and WP policies. Since WP is unable and apparently unwilling to provide a safe and productive environment for Waya, he is welcome to come with us and we will fund and support his projects at this new site. There have been additional juvenile and purile actions since his account was blocked by the admins of this site which are clearly indicitive of the "age" field of some WP accounts and experience levels. To avoid further conflict, we have moved Waya's projects off Wikiepdia where he can work in them in a productive environment WP seems unable to provide.

The various language and licensing concerns raised here have been discussed by the Wikigadugi Project and addressed, and we have updated the license to address them as best we can. Also be advised that all traffic on the wikigadugi site is packet captured in a mutli-terabyte array and archived permanently. Public traffic of all IP addresses are also displayed. If you dont want your IP information available publicly, you should use a proxy to access to the site. See [| Wikigadugi IP Tracking]. The operating system and server running this wiki is very powerful and feature rich. We hope you enjoy the site and hope to contribute jointly where it makes sense in the future.

Also, the limit of Wikipedia's power and control end at its own site and does not extend to ours. We will block any users dentified from this site who appear to be stalking or attempts by WP editors to disrupt the site. Several Wikiepdia editors have already embarked on a campaign of vandalism and been blocked. It is highly probable based upon their IP addresses that they are the same accounts named in this ARBCOM action.

If there are any additonal concerns with regard to our licensing and use of Wikipedia materials, please visit the Talk page on the site where Licensing discussions are in process and we will attempt to address the specific concerns [| Wikigadugi License Talk Page]. We look forward to working together with Wikipedia where it makes sense. Thanks for your hospitality.

Sincerely. WikiGadugi Website.

UPDATE: We have unlocked the License page at www.wikigadugi.org. Any WP editors wishing to correct and adjust the license to comply with its spirit are welcome to do so. Please create an account so we know who you are.

Block Logs from [| Wikigadugi Project]. Address 84.114.184.96 used the password from the Waya sahoni accounts on Wikipedia (which was the same as on wikigadugi) to gain Sysop access and remove the block from the logs and records of their edits. This indicates an administrator or sysop on wikipedia had access to this password and used it for hacking on wikigadugi. Other IP addresses provided for named parties for review. The account had been setup this way intentionally to see if Wikipedia high ranking members were involved. Full IP Packet capture logs available for WP and ARBCOM review. Post a request on the talk page for Wikisysop for access to these logs. 


   * 21:22, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:211.45.98.114" with an expiry time of infinite (I can do this all day, and enjoy it. block anonymous proxy)
   * 21:12, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:132.248.97.214" with an expiry time of infinite (block anonymous web proxy)
   * 21:03, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:212.92.0.135" with an expiry time of infinite (block anonymous web proxy)
   * 20:59, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:59.165.190.35" with an expiry time of infinite (block anonymous web proxy)
   * 20:54, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:203.115.1.135" with an expiry time of infinite (criminal hacking conduct. IP Trace Logs shows probable sockpuppet of Fvw or Vryl of Wikipedia)
   * 20:49, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:202.88.129.254" with an expiry time of infinite (criminal acking conduct)
   * 20:42, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:203.144.218.133" with an expiry time of infinite (hacker)
   * 20:39, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:81.56.211.83" with an expiry time of infinite (hacker)
   * 20:29, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:80.85.18.10" with an expiry time of infinite (hacker)
   * 20:10, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:84.114.184.96" with an expiry time of infinite (hacking)
   * 20:05, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:193.158.12.170" with an expiry time of infinite (vandalism)
   * 08:56, 19 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:TheNationalist" with an expiry time of 1 week (inappropriate language)
   * 19:23, 18 March 2006 Gadugi blocked "User:200.228.91.200" with an expiry time of 1 week (inappropriate edits, personal attacks)
   * 19:20, 18 March 2006 Gadugi blocked "User:Jeff Merkey" with an expiry time of infinite (sockpuppet account used for stalking)
   * 11:44, 18 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey" with an expiry time of infinite (sockpuppet account created to stalk another user)
   * 11:27, 18 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:84.114.184.96" with an expiry time of infinite (Internet Stalker and Vandal)
   * 11:23, 18 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:139.168.187.41" with an expiry time of infinite (internet stalker and vandal)
   * 11:17, 18 March 2006 Waya sahoni blocked "User:Jeffrey Merkey" with an expiry time of infinite (sockpuppet account created to stalk another user)
I said I'm not following this arbcom request anymore, but I have to make one last comment. The above is yet more grandstanding by Jeff Merkey. Except this time, he's using those logs to slander two editors (one of which is an admin). He claims that an arbitrary IP (203.115.1.135) belongs to either wikipedia user Fvw or Vryl. That is nonsense. Mr. Merkey doesn't have access to checkuser here on wikipedia, so he wouldn't have the first clue who that IP belonged to. Further, a whois of the IP shows that it is registered in Sri Lanka:
inetnum:      203.115.0.0 - 203.115.63.255
netname:      SLTNETBLK
descr:        Sri Lanka Telecom
descr:        Internet Service Provider in Sri Lanka
country:      LK
I don't know for sure, but I would seriously doubt either of those users live in Sri Lanka. A quick checkuser will probably show this to be nonsense as well. He's using this arbitration request to slander anyone who he feels is in on some massive conspiracy against him. I think this is a far more serious issue than Jeff's (most likely) fabricated allegations. Further, this user is blocked. He's evading an indef. block to continue to slander people here. This is simply rediculous. --BWD (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by clerk

This application has hung around for four days without comment from any arbitrator, and now the originator has asked to withdraw the request. Most involved parties who have chosen to respond have ignored the standing request to keep statements brief and to the point. Unless there are objections, I shall remove this application without prejudice tomorrow at around this time of day. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. You and the ARCOM has been very tolerant and gracious concerning these issues. I appreciate this very much, and the respectful way it was handled. I think the issues were elevated to a high enough level of visibility that folks are giving the whole situation some thought. I have noticed complete cessation of some of the conduct as a result. It was good for that in any event to let things and folks naturally vent. Waya sahoni 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second, Tony. Why not give the ArbCom some more time to review the case? I don't really mind either way, as I'm not involved at all and haven't read the (extremely) long statements, but given that multiple parties have already commented, why not a) let the ArbCom either reject it outrightly or make another decision, or b) get clarification from the ArbCom to remove the case because the originator has withdrawn the case? I just don't like the idea of a case with multiple statements that hasn't been rejected yet being removed without approval from the ArbCom. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (P.S. If this comment isn't appropriate here, please feel free to move it to the appropriate place. Thanks!)[reply]
Rest assured that my announcement above was accompanied by an email to the arbitration committee mailing list notifying all members of my proposal--one arbitrator responded with a "fine with me" and Fred has responded below with an "accept". In any case, any arbitrator can overrule the action of a non-arbitrator; this is their page. I'm just one of the guys who are supposed to keep this page reasonably usable. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Now that one Arbitrator has commented on the case, though, I presume it'll proceed normally? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except something had to be done about the sheer bulk of the thing so I've moved it here to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that Waya sahoni makes the statement here that "I have noticed complete cessation of some of the conduct as a result", yet, as recently as 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Waya sahoni had this to say after being reminded about the 3 revert guideline:

I will look into them. Several users are stalking me on this site. I would appreciate them being warned/blocked from doing so, then I don't have to revert their vandalism of my work on other pages continuously. If this continues to be disruptive, and the admins fail to assist me in this matter, I will simply cease contributing. Then WP can find another Native Cherokee Speaker and expert on Native American Culture to assist you. I appreciate your kind and thoughtful posting here and assistance in resolving some of this. Thanks. Waya sahoni 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Users are:

User:Vigilant - worst

User:Kebron - second worst

User:talks_to_birds - etc.

User:Vryl

User:MediaMangler - etc.

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - etc.

User:BWD

-- talks_to_birds 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waya_sahoni&oldid=44584969"