Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 12 March 2006

• ]

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

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

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

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

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

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Statement by Sander on Talk:Dutch language

Involved parties

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

• Sander (initiating party)
• Arturus
• Andries
• Arnoutf
• ClairSamoht
• Doric Loon
• Ronline (mediation host)
• AvB
• Gareth Hughes
• Woodstone
• Meursault2004

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

(main message)] (Arturus)] (Andries)] (Arnoutf)] (ClairSamoht)] (Doric Loon)] (Ronline)] (Avb)] (Woodstone)] (Meursault2004)] (Gareth Hughes)]

Note: I have moved the message on User talk talk:Arturus to User talk:Arturus — sjorford (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:

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

Statement by party 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding:

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

Statement by party 2

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by party ClairSamoht

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

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

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

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

Henryuzi: Request for Appeal of ArbCom Sanction

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by Henryuzi

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

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

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

Involved parties

• User:Waya sahoni
• MediaMangler
• Aim Here
• MJ
• OneNamelessCat
• Vigilant
• Jerry
• Kebron
• Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
• BWD
• Vryl
• talks_to_birds
• User:Pgk - admin "enforcer" for SCOX

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's rules really do work after all! Waya sahoni 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Sue me Jeff and User:Friendly neighbour are also blocked now. —Guanaco 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Statement by party Waya sahoni

AUTHORITY is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey and WP:RS and

Principles

Biographies of living persons

1) Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

3) Misplaced Pages is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ].

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, and conspiring against Jeff Merkey.

It appears to be the opinion of many editors on Misplaced Pages 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 . Has threatened to use a 100 meatpuppets to "fix" the article . As per above many believe him to be Merkey, he has at least admitted to being here on the behalf of Merkey . 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 11:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages were served twice as part of a still pending lawsuit .

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 Cheorkee name, 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editor User_talk:Aim_Here apparently searched the Library of Congress and found no mention whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 banned as a "username block". I do agree that the name was stupid and probably broke Misplaced Pages 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 banned for an invented crime (that is not-existent on Misplaced Pages 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 deleted indefinitely by Guanaco for making one revert on Waya sahoni page with my previous account.

The other account banned (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 banned for its name only and another was banned 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)

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

Locke Cole, David Levy, et al

Involved parties

• Locke Cole (talk · contribs)
• David_Levy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I, Locke Cole, and David Levy are all aware. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I made an effort once to see if we can mediate (User talk:Locke Cole/Archive/2006-02-17#Conflict). I've also tried discussing privately on IRC. I think we're beyond that now. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Locke Cole

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

• Leet is an article I've kept an eye on since I started here. Being a longtime BBS user, I'm familiar with the subject matter (see my edits to similar subject matter, for example, Major BBS and MajorMUD). Further, Netoholic notes that I voted oppose to his requested move, but he doesn't note that I changed my vote to support after considering the matter more fully.
• My comment on the 3RR was to point out that he shouldn't even be editing as he was. His edits were disruptive, and his attempt to get Madchester (talk · contribs) blocked for 3RR flies in the face of the fact that he shouldn't have been revert warring to begin with. That's not poisoning the well.
• Yes, I moved it shortly after its creation because it was a fork of WP:AUM in large part. If the issue is that I was aware he created the page, that's because he'd just reverted a large number of my template namespace edits, and I was using his contribs to see if he'd reverted any others. Note also that the page is currently on MFD (nominated by another editor), and the overwhelming consensus is for deletion (as a fork). See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates.
• Netoholic would like you to believe David Levy and I are out to get him, but if you take a look at the exact times of the two incidents, you'll see that I made my posting to WP:AN/I after David Levy blocked Netoholic:
  • 2006-03-09 05:05:52 — My posting on AN/I at 52 seconds after.
  • 2006-03-09 05:05:19 — David Levy's block at 19 seconds after.
• Why would I report him on AN/I after David Levy blocked if our actions were coordinated? I wouldn't. It's senseless.

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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

I also feel he may be stalking me:

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

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

Statement by David Levy

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

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

I'm told that Netoholic arrived at #wikipedia a short time later, claiming that he had been unfairly blocked. I was online at the time, but Zscount370 decided to unblock without informing me, and I didn't notice this until much later. (Zscount370 apologized, and he indicated that he now has a better understanding of the situation.)

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

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

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

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

Statement by Adrian Buehlmann

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

Reference:

Statement by Avriette

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

Netoholic was originally reprimanded and assigned mentorship. This was in lieu of a ban on editing the Misplaced Pages and Template namespace. However, this mentorship broke down

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

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

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

Statement by Omegatron

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by User:Crotalus horridus

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

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

• Accept, preferably as just a "Locke Cole" case at this point (with not much offered against David Levy) for stalking, etc., and possibly to revisit Netoholic as well. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

RJII probation

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

I see no problem with this, as it's in line with the spirit of our ruling. If he's being disruptive, he ought to be banned from it. RJII doesn't seem to be getting our message, however. You may want to bring consider, on AN, enacting the general probation for an appropriate length of time. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this, I have done so. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI Essjay 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair

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

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

JarlaxleArtemis

moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JarlaxleArtemis

CarlHewitt

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

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood 3

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

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here SchmuckyTheCat. Members of the ArbCom should have recognised I was not able to submit a statement when they opened the case. I understand that my statement is not a prerequisite, and the case can still be opened in the absence of my statement. Yet this should only be done when I refused to submit one, or ignored requests directed to me. This did not happen. I wanted to submit one, but my right was suspended. — Instantnood 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So, by Instantnood statement, I believe that we should stop the process of the case (currently at Proposed decision) and wait for Instantnood's argument, then re-consider all the given evidences and come up with another conclusion, similar or different. Deryck C. 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

dyslexic agnostic case

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

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case

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

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

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution