Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gadugi vs. Fvw

User:Gadugi vs. User:Fvw
WP:RFM was Rejected and Deleted without mediation occuring. David Gerard has blocked any emails reaching the mailing list.

User:Fvw re-notified User_Talk:Fvw case was reopened.

Statement by party 1
User Frank V Waveren had been engaging in abuse of his admin powers. He has blocked my accounts from editing as the result of the posting of a page on another wiki not located on the Wikipedia website. I also started a page about him on wiki based upon his linux contributions, and he deleted the page without going through Afd. This user has also posted private Bash_rc logs from kernel.org to this site which violate wikipedia policies obtained from my private accounts. I have been notified by comcast.net and other websites that Fvw has been using Wikipedias reporting systems and name to report me for frivilous "abuse of policy" reports to my home ISP and other accounts. After speaking with comcast it is clear they are ignoring his harassment. He blocked my account and addresses after I informed him I would file an Arbcom against him for his conduct.

I am 45 years old, I have four daughters, a son, and five grandchildren, and I resent a 23 year from Europe having the free reign on this site to block whomever he wants. Wikipedia is his personal playground, and its gone to his head. I have had excellent relationships with ever other admin on this site except this individual, and I have enjoyed creating content here. It's time a grownup stepped in and revoked his admin status. Blocking my access based on the content of other websites is out of line. Sending bogus abuse emails as a form of harassment is also out of line. He also recently visited the site where a page about him was posted, and vandalized the page, which resulted in him being blocked by me permanently. Site is []. I have taken down this site permanently. The real issue is can a Wikipedia admin block accounts on this site on the basis of content on another internet site. I have also obtained the emails and logs from non-wikipedia entities Fvw has been harassing and I plan to provide them to your honors.

THe simple fact is this. If you people keep allowing this type of conduct, it reflects negatively on this organization. I have withdrawn all legal issues from this site, and have been content to simply edit here. I want this abusive child dealt with. I received some interesting emails from Safarrti after I was blocked by Fvw. I have to say, I don't want to end up like that person, and I have seen the abuse done to him by folks on this site, and its shameful.

Thanks.

Jeff V. Merkey

[Re. Fred's comment]


 * Dear Fred, Legal Release Granted. Jeff V. Merkey 67.137.28.189 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Signed User:Gadugi 67.137.28.189 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Motion is made to Recuse Kelly Martin and Mindspiller on the grounds of prejudicial defect and violation of the Canons of Judicial (arbitorial) conduct. The previous language was removed and Fred Bauder's request was honored. Kelly Martin voted for another member and disregarded the ammended response. I am entitled to a hearing to present the evidence. The issue was rejected by the mediators due to their inability to render an opinion or decide the issue. The issue is does Wikipedia wield plenary jurisdiction on other websites which an admin on this site doesn't like and does that give him the right and authority under Wikipedia jurisprudence to revoke rights on this site on that basis. Does it also give him the right to stalk and pursue an editor to other sites, break into these sites under the guise of Wikipedia and Wikimedia authority claiming he is an "agent" of wikipedia policing "vandalism" (i.e. arguments over article content, 3RR), and upload private scripts, source code, intellectual property, and personal information and post it for public viewing on Wikipedia. I have verified that in addition to posting false information and downloading my scripts, this editor also downloaded private Source code from my development areas on kernel.org to servers in the Netherlands (the capital of software piracy) and then turned around and revoked all my accounts and harassed me for weeks. Signed User:Gadugi. And "The Epopt" says he in considering endorsing this type of conduct? The abuse reports to comcast were not related to Wikipedia, they involved the Utah Native American Church website and Wolf Mountain Group LLC website, LEGITIMATE business entities unrelated to Wikipedia. The reports claimed websites abuse of THESE websites. They were read only websites for the public. Comcast blocked all the websites, interfered with a business selling software, and a lawfully organized Church. The accounts have been restored, but not without several days of hassles. I have also offered a formal release of claims, and the arbitors don't seem to get it. Perhaps now you will understand. 67.137.28.189 05:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Note from wikien-l admin
I have not blocked all mails from Mr Merkey from coming through; some mails have been rejected for incivility, with a request to rewrite, as is standard. Several messages from Mr Merkey have in fact made it through to the list - David Gerard 10:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * p.s.: I am 38 with brown and grey hair, bleached, and my girlfriend thinks I look good in a skirt - David Gerard 10:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

 * Accept to consider (and perhaps endorse) 's actions. Note that I refuse to take either Fvw's age or the size of his family into consideration, though I will reassure Merkey that he will be judged by someone with an adequate amount of gray hair: I am 47 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 October 2005
 * Accept as with Sean; FWIW, I am a 22-year-old from Yurp. James F. (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. per Kelly and Fred. James F. (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject pending formal legal release Fred Bauder 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject due to litigitiousness of party. The foregoing proposed legal release is ridiculous, and I, at least, will not accept it.  Kelly Martin 17:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject per Kelly and Fred; these are unreasonable conditions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Their arguments (even those from Yurpians) have changed my mind: reject &#10149;the Epopt 14:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''Side discussion moved to talk. --cesarb 13:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)''