Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni

Please accept this request

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

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

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

In light of User:Waya_sahoni being indefinitely blocked for being a sock puppet of Jeff Merkey, I believe this issue is now moot. --BWD ^(talk) 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

LotLE "meta" comment

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

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

Statement by Waya_sahoni

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

Partial rebuttal of "Waya sahoni's" statement

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal ruling required

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

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

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

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

Note, too, that the offer is a "joint stipulation" which is linked to the request that "any editors who have posted statements on their user or talk pages they 'are here to clean up the mess left by Jeff Merkey' or statements they are 'lurkers or members of SCOX'" -- and indeed "any editors who have identified themselves as receiving compensation from IBM, SCO, Linux, or any commerical interests who are involved in the disputes" -- and indeed "any editor identifying themselves as part of the event" -- all of these are also to be "enjoined and banned permanently from editing the article" [emphasis mine]. So as soon as anyone touches the article who Waya can claim was "involved", he can say the agreement is violated, and then resume editing without (so the claim would go) having broken the agreement himself. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

And in fact no one -- not Waya, not his detractors -- should be "banned" from editing the article simply because they were involved. If anyone is to be banned, it should be because of their inability to follow Wikipedia procedure or to work constructively with other editors. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any remedies should be based on actual user conduct, not on how users identify themselves on their user pages, or any other artificial categories. If User:Waya_sahoni believes that some users' conduct is inappropriate, the thing to do is to (a) say specifically who they are; (b) provide links to the diffs that he has a problem with; and (c) let ArbCom decide whether those are appropriate or not. That's how arbitration is supposed to work in the first place, as I understand it. --OneNamelessCat 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let this request be withdrawn

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

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

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

D'accord. Waya may withdraw his request, but we editors can still pursue this case, especially for inappropriate and abuse of the dispute resolution system. Furthermore, he wishes to withdraw because he realises that the arbitration committee won't be sympathetic to him. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the matter is being taken under advisement, which is the best of all possible outcomes. It means Fred is monitoring the matter and has already made some initial conclusions. The fact that the weighty matters are being reviewed is a good thing. That article is under review, which is the best outcome, and all of us can get back to productive activities and the ARBCOM is reviewing the article in question. I leave in their capable hands. Waya sahoni 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Kissing ass generally doesn't work via text. --BWD ^(talk) 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal favourite was this one:

"Wikipedia is one of the best things to hit the internet. Jimbo Wales is a saint, and a true internet pioneer. I have no intentions of ever taking legal action against Wikipedia or Wikimedia, other than perhaps the legal action of having transferring a very large grant and funding source to help them and setting up a foundation to raise money for them. I have no intetions of ever taking legal action against any editors of Wikipedia based on any matters pertaining to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Jimbo Wales or anyone else." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guanaco/archive3#Respect_for_Process

This is after we have proven, how do you say?, beyond reasonable doubt that Waya Sahoni is Jeff Vernon Merkey. Lest we forget what Jeff has to say previously about Jimbo and Wikipedia:

These websites are controlled and sponsored by Jimmy (JIMBO) Wales of the Wikimedia Foundation and Bomis.com, a porno distrbution business controlled by Jimbo Wales. Both websites are a front for a bogus 501-3(c) Charity (Wikimedia Foundation) which solicits moneys from the General Public to pay for its cost of operations and which is also used as a tax shield for Wales various business interests, including his porno distribution businesses. Wikipedia is an on line chat room frequented by sexual predators, and internet libelers and is used as a tool of libel by Wales and the Internet Community at large.

More of that rant can be found here: http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2006-01/28-08:55/index.html

And, as others have pointed out during this process, Jeff still has pending legal action against Wikipedia. --Vryl 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Reverts to Form

NicholasTurnbull just blocked Waya for being Jeff. Jeff has now returned to his usual programming:

Its how they operate. They whore people through the site and rip them off, then when they are done with you, they cast you away. What do you expect? Wales is a porn dealer, that's where his money comes from. You really think these people are any different. They don't even follow their own policies.

Waya/Jeff is now claiming that he has pulled the rights to any of the stuff he has uploaded, and that he never had the right to post it in the first place. Or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waya_sahoni&oldid=44311382

--Vryl 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially interesting since he has been busily and vociferiously defending the same material uploaded, which is probable copyvio (see Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) for an example I've worked on), inventing explanation after refuted explanation of why the images are actually public domain. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Waya sahoni

I wrote a note to User:NicholasTurnbull to make sure he is aware there is an arbitration request pending. Merkey/Waya's melt-down after being blocked is pretty good evidence that he should be blocked, but it doesn't seem like very good form to block him before the arbitrators get a chance to decide whether or not to take the case. — MediaMangler 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it should have happened sooner. Other users have been complaining about his disruption, sockpuppetry, and legal threats for a long time before he brought this RfAr. It was only after the attention he brought to himself as a result of bringing this RfAr that he got blocked indefinitely (again). Although, I do agree that this process should have been followed through. But only for the reason that a flat out ban by the arbcom would carry more weight than an indefinite block. --BWD ^(talk) 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. --Vryl 05:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

That *someone* (OK: let's be generous, here!) has quickly returned as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.177.11.32 on

06:06, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bookofsecrets (→Hi Bookofsecrets)
06:05, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bookofsecrets (→Hi)

[foo@bar ~/] $ host 67.177.11.32
32.11.177.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-67-177-11-32.hsd1.ut.comcast.net.

wherein it is proposed to use "a robot to start sucking wp content", put it on http://www.wikigadugi.org/ and continue to work on it,

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.186.225.152 on

12:15, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:67.186.225.152 (top)
07:52, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:67.186.225.152
07:50, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:67.186.225.152
07:33, 18 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:67.186.225.152
07:20, 18 March 2006 (hist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bookofsecrets&diff=next&oldid=44323993 diff]) User talk:Bookofsecrets (→No More Further Discussion)

[foo@bar ~/] $ host 67.186.225.152
152.225.186.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-67-186-225-152.hsd1.ut.comcast.net.

wherein it is said "Good for you. It's up at www.ahniyvwiya.org and www.wikigadugi.org. Lots of work. Care to join us?"

-- talks_to_birds 16:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course that message is from Jeff Merkey, but that's one message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with. He has every right under the GFDL to mirror content from WP, and edit it as he sees fit (as long as he maintains the license, of course, rather than declare it his private copyright as soon as he makes the copy). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And for every useful edit he makes on his wiki, I have every intention of merging those changes with the same articles on wikipedia. So Mr. Merkey is helping the project even if he thinks he isn't. --BWD ^(talk) 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad news fer ya there, bud. 'Twould appear that canny Jeff has anticipated and blocked your move. Have you read wikigadugi's license? :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, unless I am mistaken, that website would be violating our copyrights. The GFDL stipulates that our work may be freely used with credit given and if the resulting work is also released under GFDL. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point! I didn't think of that. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also odd that the Wikigadugi license claims to be a modification of the non-existent "GNU Public Documentation License". The phrase seems like the terms GPL and GFDL smushed together by someone not much familiar with either individually, nor with the important differences between them. I guess an "IP law degree" from SMU doesn't quite teach subtleties like referring to actually existing licenses. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Read the license here. He's basically taking the content from wikipedia and saying that all changes to it are not licensed under the GFDL, but rather a more restrictive license that he just wrote which prohibits republication to wikipedia and sister sites of wikipedia. The GFDL prohibits this explicitly. So yea, he's violating the GFDL. He can either take the content from wikipedia and comply with the terms of the GFDL, or he can not use it at all. There's no middle-ground here if I'm reading the GFDL correctly. --BWD ^(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. If you want to use GFDL content then such is your right; you don't have to ask anybody. What you cannot do, however, is unilaterally relicence the material (modified or not) under a new licence. --kingboyk 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside Statement by Wikigadugi Project

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.

Proof positive that this is Jeff. This is the kind of box that Jeffs employer, Solera Networks, makes, Jeff works on (check LKML), and Jeff has previously made this exact claim regarding his merkeylaw.com website. On March 1, 2006, I asked Waya/Jeff if he still had this box connected to merkeylaw after he accused me of various strange things. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vryl&oldid=41717169 --Vryl 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

From Merkeylaw.com on August 29 2005, via mirror:

Welcome to MerkeyLaw! All packets on this network are captured and stored in a 3 Terabyte appliance and the sessions are dynamically reconstructed. Network traffic captured on this network may be used for forensic investigations, or as training examples for network security education. http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2005-08/29-02:10/index.html --Vryl 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

"The operating system and server running this wiki is very powerful and feature rich."

Indeed?

[foo@bar ~/var/log/] $ lynx -head -dump http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:55:16 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.49 (Fedora)
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.4
Vary: Accept-Encoding,Cookie
Expires: -1
Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate, max-age=0
Last-modified: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:55:16 GMT
Location: http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/Main_Page
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

huh.. Apache 2.0.49 on Fedora? Looks pretty normal to me. I'm running Apache 2.0.52 on Fedora at home, but, whatever... -- talks_to_birds 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ if you claim that Fedora and Apache2 are not powerful and feature rich. I have a personal fondness for Ubuntu... well, OSX too. But certainly Fedora is also quite feature rich. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My points here were two. First, it is more than likely that Merkey is trying to make reference to his own "Wolf Mountain Operating System" which, at least at this moment, continues to be stillborn. Second, that whatever Merkey is running at wikigadugi.org, it's really very commonplace, and no more "powerful and feature rich" than what I am using here at home. It's really just typical Merkey: trying to imply that there's *way* more going on there than there is... -- talks_to_birds 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

I just wanted to remind everybody here that wikigadugi.org is beyond reasonable doubt hosted on the personal server of Jeffrey Merkey.

$ host wikigadugi.org
wikigadugi.org has address 67.177.35.222

$ host merkeylaw.com
merkeylaw.com has address 67.177.35.222

$ host wolfmountaingroup.org
wolfmountaingroup.org has address 67.177.35.222

$ host wolfmountaingroup.com
wolfmountaingroup.com has address 67.177.35.222

Therefore it is logical to think that some (if not all) accounts of that "project" are Jeff Merkey himself. Friendly Neighbour 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And, as if it needed repeating:

[foo@bar ~/] $ host 67.177.35.222
222.35.177.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-67-177-35-222.hsd1.ut.comcast.net.

-- talks_to_birds 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's rollback of two edits by BWD

Very recently, BWD made the following two edits:

1. 22:49, 19 March 2006 BWD (outside statement by Wikigadugi Project? that was created after this arbcom request. how is this relevant to anything? take this spam elsewhere)
2. (cur) (last) 22:40, 19 March 2006 BWD (what is this nonsense? whatever it is, take it to the talk page. this page is large enough as it is.)

The effect seemed to be to remove material that, in my personal view, might well be of serious moment to arbitrators considering whether to accept this case.

As a clerk in this case my task has been a difficult one--I thank all parties, BWD included, who have borne with my refactoring of this application onto a separate page. We all recognise, I think, that Requests for arbitration seldom exceed 64kb before the case is accepted.

So I've tried to deprecate the mere addition of material to this application for the sake of it.

But the material removed seems to be a serious accusation leveled at an unidentified Wikipedia editor--and one who, if the evidence is verifiable, probably has the ability to view user passwords.

This allegation, whether true or false, must be taken seriously.

Thus I rolled back. Removal of this kind of material from an arbitration application should not be tolerated. Please do not attempt to remove the material again. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to vandalise anything, so I apologize if that was the result. I was simply trying to remove what looked like spam. I didn't understand what Jeff's personal wiki project had to do with this until you clarified. If someone has hacked him, then he needs to go to the authorities, because there's little the arbcom can do about that. --BWD ^(talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've made the decision not to follow this arbitration request anymore. I'm only peripherally involved in Jeff's arbitration request since I never edited the article for content; I merely spell checked. He listed me because I (correctly) tagged his account as a sock puppet. He's now indef. blocked for that. Further, this entire thing has turned into one massive grandstanding exercise, not only by Jeff, but by just about everyone involved in it. This entire thing is poisonous. So Jeff can continue his internet drama show without me involved. I'm sure a clerk will inform me on my talk page if any sanctions apply to me. Thanks. --BWD ^(talk) 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I think the allegation will prove to be nonsense, If I understand correctly (I haven't looked to the code yet, I'm sure a developer will confirm this pretty quickly), in common with pretty much every other website passwords are not stored on the database as text, but as a salted hash, i.e. a one way function, there is no ability to view user passwords. But I agree the allegation itself is serious enough that its falseness would be as significant as its truthfulness. --pgk^(talk) 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am no developer, but I had the same thought as you, and mentioned it in the reverted thread. Anyway, looks like MerkeyRealityTM again. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/Password_matches&direction=next&oldid=14441077 Vryl 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also here --pgk^(talk) 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikigadugi digression

I know editors are tempted to engage in a long threaded debate about events outside Wikipedia. I'm sure Jeff Merkey has engaged in silliness there... but ultimately, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The RfAr is already too long, and arbitrators need to go by conduct on WP itself. If folks would just remove all their comments from that whole thread on the project page, I think that would be the best thing by far. If you like, put it here; but the RfAr is already way too long. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a very serious allegation and (whether true or false) one that I suspect the Committee will want to consider in deciding whether to accept the case. I have restored it.

Clerk to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by clerk

Moved to talk page as it's largely obsolete. --Tony Sidaway 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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!)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Original Research"

Fred the arbitrator has said that he considers some of the Jeff Vernon Merkey page "original research". Does anyone know why? I can't see it, mesself... --Vryl 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because it's presenting information from a primary source, namely Jeff's LKML postings. The 'research' is in choosing which bits of Jeff's postings to present to the reader, and it's original because there's not many reputable sources that have done the same. I imagine there are other borderline notable bio articles on WP that have similar issues with sourcing. --Aim Here 10:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If they're used as evidence of what Merkey said primary sources are surely acceptable? They only become untrustworthy (in general terms, not specific to this article) if used as evidence of what somebody did. The choosing of which parts to use == original research is a good point, but doesn't the editorial selection of sources and quotations happen in every article which uses citations? --kingboyk 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok... All of that stuff was represented in the media. Someone went thru and found the original sources and put them in cos it was considered better. Are you (and Fred?) saying that we should revert it back to when it was from news stories? I don't get it... --Vryl 11:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't personally have a problem with the article's sourcing, but I'm not a Wikipedia high heid 'yin either. I was just hypothesising as to what was in Fred's mind. --Aim Here 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Selected primary sources are not the sort of reliable published reports suitable for a source for information in a Wikipedia article. I do not contest the validity or accuracy of the research, I just note that most of the material in the article (including almost all of the material Merkey objects to) is original research and ought to be removed, unless a source can be found in a reliable published work. Fred Bauder 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/Main_Page

Hi Fred. Very simple solution. These folks from SCOX and Linux are not going to stop. If you simply delete the article they will leave the site and pursue their target somewhere else and leave WP in peace. I also know that the subject of the article will leave with them. Delete it or remove the content yourself and permanently lock the page and I can guarantee these people will leave WP and never return. The subject of the article is a hobby of theirs. Let them pursue their subject elsewhere, and leave WP ain peace. 67.166.115.252 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. I don't see any edits to your article since you left. Nope. Not one edit since March 19. Not one. What does that say about the volatility of the article without your presence here? Just a thought... BTW, nice final edit there,

"Its how they operate. They whore people through the site and rip them off, then when they are done with you, they cast you away. What do you expect? Wales is a porn dealer, that's where his money comes from. You really think these people are any different. They don't even follow their own policies. Waya sahoni 04:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)"

Vigilant 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If a controversy about a Wikipedia article arises in the mainstream media, which facts about the article do you believe more: its very text and history or the press report? Similarly, the newsworthy Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's postings on Linux kernel mailing list, in my opinion, are a much better source than any press report about them. The two situations are IMHO counter-examples (and exceptions) to your general rule. Friendly Neighbour 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder says: "most of the material in the article (including almost all of the material Merkey objects to) is original research and ought to be removed, unless a source can be found in a reliable published work."

One of the main sources Merkey has objected to in the past is the January 30, 1998 ruling by Judge Anthony Schofield, which was published in the United States Patent Quarterly, and which states that Merkey "regularly lies or exaggerates" and that he has a "penchant for creating a separate reality and for deliberate misrepresentation". That was written after extensive hearings, and the submission of numerous briefs, affidavits, and other evidence from all the parties, which the Judge enumerates on the first page of the ruling. I realize that Merkey rather surprisingly doesn't mention this source in his arbitration statement, but just to be clear: you would not contend that this publication is somehow less reliable and well-vetted than something published in a typical media outlet, would you?

(I notice the current version of the article calls this ruling a "preliminary ruling", but it's actually a "ruling granting to Novell a preliminary injunction" and directing Novell's counsel "to prepare an appropriate order", which order can be found here. The appeals court refused to hear an interlocutory appeal of the ruling (see the case docket listing). Also, Merkey filed an Affidavit of Prejudice making allegations based on the ruling, but Judge Steven L. Hansen, after having "read and considered Mr. Merkey's Affidavit as well as responsive pleadings", found that that the affidavit "fail[ed] to set forth any legally sufficient showing of bias or prejudice" (see Judge Hansen's order).)

I'm surprised that at the same time you (Fred Bauder) brought up this problem of reliabilty of sources (here), you mentioned "the excellent contributions [Merkey] is making in other areas of Wikipedia". I looked at a couple of Merkey's contributions to articles on Native American subjects, and they make interesting reading, but I see no particular reason to believe that they are nonfiction. I certainly haven't read everything he's contributed, though. Could you point out a few instances in which Merkey contributed something for which he cited a "reliable published work", and someone other than Merkey has verified that the reliable published work actually says what Merkey claims it says? -- Al Petrofsky 208.201.229.64 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone is interested in reading a few of my thoughts about Merkey, about some of his detractors, and about Wikipedia, please see message 339303 on the Yahoo SCOX message board (as well as the Merkey page at scofacts.org). -- Al Petrofsky 208.201.229.64 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My reading of WP:RS indicates that materials which fail verifiability consitute original research if they come from the web. Looks like all this content fails. The Court PDF's are certainly verifiable. The ruling is not since there is not a reliable source. Apparently, only the groklaw website, www.groklaw.com, published these materials. Since groklaw is run by anonymous authors, it also appears to fail WP:RS. Perhaps if a pdf court certified copy could be obtained, then this would not be the case. 67.166.115.252 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My reading of WP:SOCK shows that you are indef blocked and should find a new hobby. tracert 67.166.115.252 runs out to Merkeyland (c-67-166-115-252.hsd1.ut.comcast.net)... as usual. Vigilant 04:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sonic.net get hold of you yet? I'd stay away from chat rooms, they are such a waste of time and really tax internet bandwidth. Have a great day.

Why would they Jeff? Are you voilating WP:NLT again? Vigilant 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please this request be decided

I've already asked for this request to be dropped. I still believe it was a good idea. See the never ending trollfest here and on the Request Page. It is probably too late now, when three arbitrors are for accepting the request. However, it should be decided as soon as possible. Otherwise we will see Jeffrey Merkey carpet bombing us from various Utah Comcast IP numbers (and possibly also new sockpuppet accounts) with all kind of vitriol and nonsense until Doomsday comes. Friendly Neighbour 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the arbitrators don't really have the time to wade through all of the material in order to decide whether or not to take the case. Perhaps it would help if all of our responses could be condensed into a single, concise summary which would just state the contentions we can all agree upon, not attempt to prove those claims. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how to go about producing such a summary and it might not help that much at this late date. Anyone else think summarizing our responses would help move this case along? — MediaMangler 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that there seem to be a lot of drive-by admins, editors, and others who (at least without any visible signs of research) flit by, quickly scan what's been said, and render judgement.

Simply because of the very deceptive nature of the true topic (bottom line: Merkey's relentless behavior) it's just not possible to read a "concise summary" because many pieces of the puzzle are needed for all this to be seen clearly for the complex issue it is... -- talks_to_birds 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user Waya sahoni is back as PeyoteMan

I put the following warning today on PeyoteMan's Talk page:

PeyoteMan (talk · contribs), you claimed to have recently edited Wikigadugi. Therefore you must be Gadugi (talk · contribs) (=Jeffrey Vernon Merkey), Waya sahoni (talk · contribs) (most probably same person) or Red Bear (deemed to be identical with Bookofsecrets (talk · contribs)) because no one else edits there, especially as an "Sysop/Bearucrat" (your spelling).

Both Gadugi and Waya sahoni are blocked here on Wikipedia. You already once edited your talk page as 67.182.238.38 (talk · contribs) from the same IP netblock of the same internet provider as Gadugi and Waya sahoni always did (from Utah, not Delaware!) and later signed the same comment with your name. You already started to edit the same articles Waya sahoni did before you. Be careful. If you touch the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article you will be quickly banned as another Gadugi & Waha sahoni sockpuppet. Not by me - I'm only warning you as the Friendly Neighbour 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to sound any alarm yet, even as it was evident to me that Gadugi, Waya sahoni and PeyoteMan are the same user. His answer was to delete my warning without answering it. Therefore I move it here, where it may be noticed. Friendly Neighbour 21:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems the warning worked. Seventeen minutes after I moved here its text, Peyoteman announced a wikibreak. I wonder how long before he will return again. And what name he assumes next time... Friendly Neighbour 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't the kind of wikibreak where one actually goes away. After he made threats of legal action against other Wikipedia editors, I blocked him indef. FreplySpang (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Waya sahoni returns again in several incarnations

It seems that after PeyoteMan (talk · contribs) (Jeff Merkey in real life) was permanently blocked, Waya sahoni created at least two new accounts and edited from several IP numbers.

1. Asgaya Gigagei (talk · contribs) - here he admitted owning many sockpuppet accounts, here he bragged one of them is 67.169.249.44 (compare with this WP edit) and here he signed as "Jeff"
2. 67.169.249.44 (talk · contribs) - Asgaya Gigagei actually admitted using this IP number (see above)
3. WhiteDoveWomen (talk · contribs) - this postings links WhiteDoveWomen to Asgaya Gigagei
4. 70.103.108.66 (talk · contribs) - this is an IP number from soleranetworks.com where Jeff Merkey works according to the page about him. This IP number and Asgaya Gigagei are evidently operated by one person.

He again edited twice the article on himself, which is the very topic of this Arbitration Request: see [1] & [2]. He put defamation warnings on several users talk pages (Jerryg, Talks to birds and Vigilant - the first entered by Asgaya Gigagei and the rest by 70.103.108.66 which connects the two nyms nicely) as well, as an article Talk page [3] (BTW he's close to 3RR on this page).

I did not intervene in this situation in any way, except by observing his actions, documenting them on my Talk page and now putting a warning here, where it belongs. Friendly Neighbour 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All four above mentioned sockpuppet accounts have been indefinitely blocked by User:Zscout370. Friendly Neighbour 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And exactly when is Jeff going to be banned? How many more sockpuppets is wikipedia admins going to have block before there's an end to this nonsense? --Jerry (Talk) 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What practical difference would a ban make now? Jeff's nyms are more or less blocked as soon as they're spotted these days. Even if he was banned, this would still be an endless game of sockpuppet whack-a-mole until Jeff decides to give up and go home.

Jerryg, can you enlighten me as to what practical steps Wiki could take that would stop Jeff wasting everyone's time if he's so inclined, short of sending the Wikipedia Heavy Enforcement Team to Utah to smash up Jeff's computers, cut his network cables and break his knuckles (joke, Jeff, joke!) ? --Aim Here 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear that Merkey has the willingness and the technical knowledge necessary to adopt new IP (Internet Protocol) addresses from Comcast almost at will, over a widely scattered range of netblocks that seem at least to be held under the 67.* prefix.

The only identifying feature that Merkey seems not to be able to escape is that he cannot (due to Comcast's network organization, I'm guessing) move himself completely out of a *.ut.comcast.net (ut == Utah) host name, although I've seen two IP addresses that show both a *.ut and a *.co (Colorado) host name simultaneously. This has been very rare and should cause technical difficulties for Comcast that they'd want to minimize.

I imagine that he would be unwilling to use, or to change, the IP address that hosts all his web sites (wikigadugi.org has address 67.177.35.222), but even changing that would require only a brief period while the DNS change propagates.

I've been tracking his previous IP addresses and I've got at least a dozen (haven't really counted) that I either watch or have watched... -- talks_to_birds 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)