Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 19

=== Copyright Infringement/Privacy Laws/Administrator Abuse 67.177.35.25 vs. Fvw, Pgk, Exabit, Kebron, and Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters ===

Administrator Fvw and the users listed above have been engaging in abuse of another user, Gadugi. Gadugi is currently blocked from the site by Fvw. I am his wife and he asked me to post this request here due to continued administrative abuse by user Fvw reverting edits and enforcing the behavior of the named users. These users have been posting false information about Mr. Merkey at page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey, and in fact, they created the page solely for the purpose of using wikipedia as a platform for libel and personal attacks of Mr. Merkey. They have also taken Mr. Merkey's copyrighted content from his website merkeylaw.com and posted it to this site and are linking to illegal mirrors of the content on the internet which are in the UK and distriuting Mr. Merkey's copyrighted materials from this site. Mr. Merkey has been harrassed by these people for almost a year on various websites, and he believes them to be, Alan P. Petrofsky, Simon G. Best, Andre Hedrick, Russ Mossman, Rik Van Reil, and other associates of Linus Torvalds of the Linux Community. These users also posted a notice linking Mr. Merkey to his anonymous identity Gadugi which violates wikipedia policies. Mr. Merkey asks that his copyrighted materials and links to them be removed from this site and the notice disclosing his identity be removed from the site as it violates US privacy laws and he did not give wikipedia permission to disclose his identity. Mr. Merkey also asks that the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey be deleted from this website as it changes every 5 minutes and is clearly just some sort of platform for internet libel, harassment, and stalking. Were the article accurate, Mr. Merkey would not object, but the article is simply propoganda for the Linux Community, and this clearly does not fall within wikipedias mission to bring and provide accurate content to the world.


 * Hello Mr. Merkey's wife who refers to him as Mr. Merkey. If you want the page deleted, nominate it at AfD. If this AfD fails (or if you have, and it did) then its because the community chooses it to stay. We do not like legal threats, not even in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. This is definitely not something to mediate over. In fact, I support the block, and I think all the other mediators do too. This is pretty frivolous and I doubt any parties would agree to mediation. You should list this at the arbcom, where chances are they'll reject it. Don't make this another Ashida Kim. Mediation is not the right place to take this. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Status: Rejected

Jack Sarfatti and various admins
The object of this article created an account to dispute Wikipedia's description of him but then got blocked - and his sockpuppets got blocked too. I read about the fuss in wikien-l and called the guy on the phone. Uncle Ed 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jack was blocked previously for legal threats and sending rude emails to several admins, including sending one to me apparently cursing the community. If he can behave in the future then this could be settled. -- Phroziac ( talk )[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 17:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed, contact the juriwiki-l about this. The legal team would best be aware of any discussion you might have with Sarfatti. Thanks. Anthere

I sent only a test message, because I'm not a jurywiki-l member. Please let them know I'm trying to get in touch with them. Uncle Ed 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So when did you call him exactly? Just last night, he sent harassing, threatening emails to me and several other people in the academic field in which I work (some of whom have never edited Wikipedia). He has apparently done this before to User:Hillman. Is Sarfatti now saying he will stop this behavior? --C S 20:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So what is jurywiki? I'll assume this should be move to the Dropped section... R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over Inedia
There needs to be a mediation over the article, Inedia.

Maprovonsha172 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Left a message on Maprovansha172's page to elaborate. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He's referring to the Breatharianism/Inedia article, not to a user named Inedia, and yeah, there's a dispute about his contributions, though I'm not sure if it merits mediation. — Omegatron 01:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The filer of this case seems to be uninterested. Moving to Dropped. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over Namgla
There needs to be a mediation over the article, Namgla.

User: 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding article Namgla for deletion, A lack of a website does not mean that the accociation does not exsist.


 * No, but it means that the existence of the association has not been verified, in the absence of some other indication that it exists. Robert McClenon 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * o_O I don't know what to do about this one, I'll move to dropped, and you can elaborate if you still want to persue mediation. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?)

Gadugi and the Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey page
I need a mediator to review the links to the merkeylaw mirror sites contained in this page. This article is about me so its inappropriate for me to edit the article or post tags. I have tried arbcom as well, but I had to withdraw and back away from the legal issues which I have done. I am now trying to be a "good Jeff" and play nice with the rules. I ask for a mediator to review "fair use" guidelines and determine whether or not the links should be removed. I have posted comments about the links to offsite copyrighted materials to Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. I would prefer the links be removed as they appear to not conform to WP policies about fair use, but since the article is about me, I am hardly a disinterested or impartial party. Can someone review this for me and let me know if this does or does not confirm to WP policies. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, I just need an impartial person to look at this and then I'll shut up about it.

Thanks

Gadugi 21:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Merkey for actually being a bit more mature and filing a decent RfM, I'll look who to assign this to as soon as I'm done moving stuff aroud. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, see Mediation. Specifically private investigators. Head on down to WP:RFC and file an RfC under the article section. Thanks Gadugi, R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC; User:Duk; User:Ed Poor vs. User:travb;  User:165.247.208.115;  User:Sasquatch
This argument started on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation

User:Ed Poor's bias
User:Ed Poor, a mediator here, was also active in the editing of Winter Soldier Investigation:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Ed_Poor.27s_Additions

So since he is prejudice in this case, at your discretion, I submit that he should be withdrawn from deciding this case as a moderator. A reasonable observer would question his impartiality.

Past history
User:Cecropia set up a October_2004_protection because of User:TDC and user User:SEWilco:

"'This article and Vietnam Veterans Against the War are the subject of an edit war between one or two logged-in users (I see User:TDC and User:SEWilco) and a series of anonymous IPs, which I have good reason to suspect are the same person or coordinated persons.'"

Full text of October 2004 protection message:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive1#October_2004_protection
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#October_2004_protection


 * (The article had been protected before in July 2004, but from what I understand, none of the parties in this group were involved)

On 10 Feb 2005 User:AllyUnion unprotected the site:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Unprotected

On 13:00, 25 August 2005 User:Rd232 again protected the site:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Page_protect_.28again.29

On 17:35, 13 September 2005 User:Tony SidawayTalk unprotected the site:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Page_protect_.28again.29

Current confrontation
User:TDC on October 20, deleted large portions of the article. 'Starting the newest revert war.

User:TDC started the revert war.

User:TDC,User:Duk and User:165.247.208.115 then got into a revert war.

I, User:travb, then erased many of the "superfluous use of direct quotations" (the reason why User:TDC erased many of the quotes) and footnoted many of the alledged copyright violations.

User:Duk, User:TDC friend then erased ALL of the content, using the copyright violation template.

User:TDC then reported User:165.247.208.115 to the a 3RR

User:Sasquatch, who took on the 3RR alegation, decided to revert the text back to the original with a warning:

"c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)"

Text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Removing_content_versus_fixing_content

User:Sasquatch is an unbiased person who has never added any content to the Winter Soldier Investigation, he was the person who assigned himself to the 3RR case that User:TDC filed.

User:Ed Poor, was invited to join this current revert war by User:Duk

Despite what User:Sasquatch had decided:

"'Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it.'"

After User:Sasquatch recommendation, User:Ed Poor then deleted all 9 pages, and started over from scratch. This made User:Duk happy.

I will now revert the page back to User:Sasquatch original edit, with the 9 pages entact.

Further information
Can someone lock this page once again, where User:Sasquatch left it, while this current dispute is mediated/resolved?

Please also read the 3RR allegation of User:TDC.

I have found that User:TDC has:


 * been blocked several times (at least 4 that I am aware of), for periods of 48 hours,
 * has deleted large portions of articles, and
 * has been very beligerent when administrators block him.Travb 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sasquatch's Note
i would hardly put Uncle Ed on a side. If anything, I think he's more neutral than me. He just got caught in the crossfire and didn't know what to do so he tried to comprimise. But I would not put myself in this mediation unless all parties feel it is absolutely nessacery. I think this dispute was started long before Edmund and Edmond (that's me) got involved. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Sasquatch  t|c 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * you misunderstand--I actually think that Uncle Ed is more apt to support the views of TDC and duk. i dont know, you know ed better than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

Rehashed
I have completely rehashed the offending paragraphs and so there really shouldn't be a problem anymore. I will continue to monitor any problems that may arise. Sasquatch  t|c 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you t|c for your support of fair use. Ed also actually said he supported fair use up to "300 words", I am against any site of any politcal stripe being completly erased. I am brand new to the Winter Soldier Investigation wikisite, but the problem itself has been going on for over a year. Hopefully your continued monitoring will avoid having Winter Soldier Investigation be protected again by an administrator.


 * I agree 100% with your comments on my talk page:


 * "Rewriting is better, in my opinion, because you could have avoided all the uglinesses that just happened. Anyways, I rewrote the paragraphs there should be no problem with it not. This should have been done before all this started."


 * As mentioned before, I added a new wikiquote page and started to add footnotes to the page before Duk and TDC started putting a copyright violation on the page.


 * You are right, it really didnt have to happen this way.--Travb 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)