Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 8

DreamGuy case just sitting there
It has 4 accept votes; why hasn't something been done with it? I realize the filer has been blocked (which might cause some trouble), and the issues it relates to have passed (to my knowledge), but it just bugs me to have it moldering at the bottom of the page. N (t/c) 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn’t just DreamGuy. There are four unopened cases, including Ultramarine, whose case has been sitting there for nearly a month. Susvolans ⇔ 07:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Fred Bauder 16:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "sitting there for nearly a month" And yet Ed Poor's case was opened and closed in a week. FuelWagon 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion
Is there a reason that cases waiting to be accepted aren't transcluded as separate pages? Not only would it allow people to watchlist only the cases they're interested in, it would serve as an easy way to see how long a case has sat unedited. -- Norvy (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with that suggestion. Since many of the RfArs become lengthy, this page is not really scrollable, and has to be navigated by branching to sections anyway.  Why not branch to subpages?  Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators need to use it to vote, once branched off it will be hard to locate the cases and vote on them. And yes, arbitrators have lost cases and thus neglected to attend to them. Fred Bauder 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This may not be a good idea, but what about including only the names of the principals and the arbitrators' views on accepting the case on the main page, and transcluding the statements by the parties? Robert McClenon 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is convenient for us to have them both on the same page so you can view the presentation, then vote. (However, actually deciding involves a lot of jumping around to take looks at what the parties are talking about). I think the actual problem is the failure of the Arbitrators to promptly decided the various matters one way or the other and move them off. Fred Bauder 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

24.147.97.230 Update
The revert warring of the Ted Kennedy article, and gaming of the 3RR system by sockpuppets, has resumed. Should I add the details to the RfAr, or is the mention here sufficient? Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I recused myself. "Fat turd" seems appropriate to me, but your efforts to influence the decision need to be brought to the attention of those arbitrators who have not yet voted. putting it here is not likely to influence them. Fred Bauder 19:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have thought better of this and accepted the case as it is about the anonymous user, not Ted Kennedy Fred Bauder 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo
Is anything happening here? - brenneman  (t)  (c)  05:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No one seems to have gotten to it yet, but I think the upstream logjam has finally been broken. Fred Bauder 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just curious...
Just curious, but from the two new recent cases involving the Polygamy article &mdash; they went through mediation with Andre, and it failed. Because the arbitration policy states that "The Arbitrators will hear disputes that have been referred to Arbitration by the Mediation Committee.", does that mean that all cases referred to by the MedCom will automatically be accepted? I'm not making any comment on the current case, but as a mediator, I'm just curious and would like to know for future reference. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion acceptance would not be automatic but almost certain. Fred Bauder 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Was polygamy referred to arbitration by MedCom? Sort of, perhaps. If one party refuses mediation, does that reduce the odds of that person having arbitration accepted? I am involved with the polygamy dispute, so I am biased here.  There is reason to bring polygamy to arbitration, unfortunately. So the answer to the question will probably not affect this case. Nereocystis 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that one person refusing mediation should be seen as a way of mediation failing to resolve the dispute. Clearly, if mediation succeeds, there is no need for arbitration.  The effect on the dispute is the same if one person refuses mediation, or if the mediation fails because the principals do not agree on the scope of the mediation, or if the mediator concludes that there is an impasse.  Actually, in the case in point, it appears to me that it was not a case of a user refusing mediation, but of failure to agree on what would be mediated.  All of the steps prior to arbitration have been tried.  Robert McClenon 20:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your description of the current impasse is better, and more neutral than mine. Nereocystis 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon back
FYI: Gabrielsimon (AKA Gavin the Chosen), the block from his Arb case having expired, is back and editing under the name. N (t/c) 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How many Arbitrators do we need?
I have posted to the village pump asking that question. Feedback from current ArbCom members and those involved in arbitration would be welcome. Dragons flight 05:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that we need more arbitrators, but at the same time we need to revise the ArbCom procedures so that cases are heard by panels of three (or maybe five) arbitrators rather than by the entire ArbCom. Currently the ArbCom resembles a Supreme Court more than a trial court.  If the ArbCom were to have cases heard by panels of three arbitrators, then there could be a right to request to appeal to the full ArbCom, but that should be only a right to request to appeal, not a right to have the appeal heard.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon 11:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable proposal; but - until the new Arbcom in January - this would be no different than the present; there appear to be less than half a dozen active Arbs. Septentrionalis 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * More arbitrators would also also the parties involved better shot of getting a recusal from biased arbcom members. In general I think that the plaintiff and respondent shoul each be able to request a single recusal. Klonimus 09:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jury trial brainstorming

 * A trial court is a jury of peers, something that could easily be implemented at Wikipedia. --Zephram Stark 13:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The closest to that is the User RfC, but people with the most friends seem to win out over actual policy violations. I filed a feature request with wikimedia or some place (can't find the link right now) for some sort of tool that would take two usernames and give you a complete history of overlapping edits on all pages common between the two editors. The idea was to have the tool spit out some sort of objective measure of how much interaction two people have had, then you could construct a "jury" from neutral and uninvolved editors, rather than having someone simply email all their friends to support their RfC and overwhelming any real issues with a mob. Actually, I think it would be a good way to get rid of arbcom completely. when a subjective interpretation of some policy is needed, you could simply put together a jury of neutral editors (people uninvolved with any of the editors in the dispute) and you should get about as fair a ruling as possible. throw in a minimum 1,000 edit count to qualify for jury duty, and allow both sides to remove some number from the jury before you get the final 12 or whatever number, and you'd have the possibility of a pretty decent system with no bottle neck at arbcom. FuelWagon 22:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That metric would be useless for people who do RC patrol. RC patrollers edit random articles all over the place with no obvious pattern except that they all tend to hit the same heavily vandalized articles repeatedly.  And since RC patrollers tend to become admins.... Besides, I don't think you can get rid of ArbCom like this -- after all, modern courts have both a judge and a jury. Kelly Martin 03:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * a judge only makes sure that protocol and procedure is followed as each side makes their case. A jury decides the facts of the case. In the case of something like wikipedi, you could have both sides make their case in a subpage somewhere, and then have a small jury act as judge to simply make sure that any required protocols are followed (evidence submitted in teh correct format, prerequisites are met, irrelevant evidence is removed, wahtever). When they're done, then you generate another jury that decides the facts of teh case based only on the evidence provided. As for RC patrol, what's your point? That you couldn't find an editor who is uninvolved with an RC patroller? I have a hard time believing that. John Lennon is singing "Imagine there's no Arbcom. I wonder if you can." FuelWagon 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First, not all trial courts use trial by jury. Trial by jury is only guaranteed when the penalty is imprisonment, a sentence that is more severe than the ArbCom hands down.  Traffic court is a trial by one judge.  Second, the standards of due process that have evolved in the twentieth century for trial by jury simply cannot be applied to Wikipedia.  A jury acts as trier of fact only.  The judge is the arbiter of the law.  The fairness of trial by jury depends very much on how well the judge instructs the jury about how to try to case.  The instructions are well defined, and have generally been reviewed by appellate courts (since incorrect instructions to the jury are one of the most common reasons for appeals of criminal convictions).  The ArbCom is still in the process of defining a body of precedent.


 * The fact that minor offenses are tried by one judge is worth considering. Perhaps, once the ArbCom agrees to hear a case, it should be assigned to one arbitrator, rather than to the whole ArbCom or a panel of three.  Assignment of cases would be by rotation, so that there would be no cherry-picking.  An arbitrator could recuse, but not select a case.


 * I still think that we need more arbitrators. The idea of trial by jury is one that would require considerably more definition before it could work.  Robert McClenon 12:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Even if we came up with a great jury system (highly unlikely), it wouldn't be possible to get rid of the ArbCom. Getting more than few random people to examine a potentially huge amount of evidence simply isn't plausible. Juries work in the US because jury duty is required by law. Instituting such a policy on Wikipedia would be nearly impossible in addition to being counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 12:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's funny how people talk about RC editors who dedicate their time and energy to reverting vandalism and yet the idea that people might be willing to dedicate their energy to act as a neutral juror is considered impossible. If wikipedia set up the system and people knew that their time and energy were needed, I find it odd to think that people contribute all sorts of time and energy to wikipedia in every venue except as a juror. In any event, a tool that could take a list of names of involved parties and then give an "objectivity" score for any potential commenters would be useful even in the current system. It would certainly put RfC comments into perspective, and would make it easier to check the history between two parties in a request for arbitration. Rather than try and design the whole system first, the tools needed could be developed and how they get used could evolve naturally. Anyone know any of the whiz kids who develops the wiki tools? FuelWagon 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that a jury system would be implausible, although not impossible. There's a big difference between RC patrol and jury duty. RC patrol can be performed by any editor willing to spend a few minutes spotting and reverting vandalism. Serving on a jury would require many hours examining evidence in addition to the time spent deliberating with other members. If enough members of the jury quit during the process, the whole case would likely be brought to a halt.


 * As for the "objectivity score", I also have to question its plausibility. Designing an accurate software model for objectivity would be quite an undertaking. When software attempts to model social interaction, the results are mediocre at best. It wouldn't be difficult to make a tool that lists the pages both parties have in common, but I'm not sure how useful that would be. Even though I have great respect for technology and its applications, there's just no substitute for human arbitrators. Carbonite | Talk 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The neutralality score could be as simple as adding up the number of edits on shared pages, at least for a start. If you want to make it more intelligent, you could add extra points when the two editors have sequential edits to the same page or when they edit the same threaded conversation, such as this thread under "Jury trial brainstorming", which would indicate more interaction. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a quick, objective measure of how much history an editor may be bringing to a dispute. FuelWagon 02:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

More comments on jury trial idea
I agree with Carbonite. The concept of a jury system is implausible although not impossible. Also, if FuelWagon is suggesting that a jury trial system could eliminate the need for an ArbCom, then he misses a basic point about jury trial works. The jury only decides the facts. The judge instructs the jury as to what the standards are for deciding the facts. In particular, in a criminal case, the judge instructs the jury as to what the elements of each criminal charge are and how the law should be considered. There is one judge in a jury trial, in addition to the six or twelve jurors. Jury trial does not eliminate the need for judges (arbitrators). It only changes their duties somewhat.

Also, jury trial works best when the legal standards have already been well established. In 2005, judges have clear well-defined precedents on what the difference is between first-degree murder and second-degree murder, or what the difference is between misdemeanor assault and felonious assault (in any given state, province, or country). The ArbCom is still in the process of defining its principles. Usually an ArbCom decision results in a restatement of principles that have been previously stated, but sometimes also in new statements of principles. The development of precedents is not done by jurors, but by judges.

Jury systems have occasionally been used without judges, such as in ancient Athens. Socrates was tried by a jury of 500 citizens, and was sentenced to death by poison. I think that most students of that case consider it to have been mob rule disguised as justice. I think that the idea of a jury system without judges is an experiment that has already been tried and should be concluded to be a failure.

If the intention is to speed up arbitration, then the solution might be (as I mentioned earlier) to assign one arbitrator to each case. This would resemble the way that a traffic court, for instance, is conducted in most states of the United States: trial by one judge, with the right to appeal, that is rarely exercised.

There is one situation in which a jury system might be useful. Since a jury is called on to decide facts, not law, it might be an interesting idea to consider whether content disputes could be mediated or arbitrated by jury, that is, by a panel of uninvolved but responsible Wikipedians. That sort of jury duty could be voluntary. I think that some Wikipedians who do not want to serve on the MedCom or ArbCom might volunteer to be called for panels to resolve factual issues. Robert McClenon 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Socrates was condemned to death, therefore juries don't work? How about people who put other people on their "killfile" are generally not the best folks to decide facts of a case? If someone has a long enough history with another person, their opinion of any action being considered for judgement will be colored by a long history with that editor. This goes both for and against the editor being judged. The arbcom specifically mention Ed Poor's long history of contributions to wikipedia in deciding whether or not he broke a specific policy in recent events. And admins guilty of pov pushing have learned it is most productive to travel in packs to resist opposition on the talk page, to support each other if an RfC is filed, and to suggest arbcom not accept a case if it gets to that point. Wikipedia's dispute resolution system rewards those who travel in packs, those who support each other without question regardless of actual policy. The side with the greatest numbers wins, regardless of whether or not those same numbers, those same editors, show up consistently on multiple pages, backing each other up on all sorts of disputes. Arbcom themselves has favoritism based on how long the editor has been contributing, that they cannot always be trusted to decide facts from a completely neutral point of view. The fact of a current event should not be colored by how long the person has been contributing. The facts of a current dispute should not be determined by how many revert-buddies an editor has accumulated over time. The facts of a case need be determined by editors who are not involved with either side, and who play no favoritism to how long someone has been contributing or how many revert-buddies the editor in dispute has accumuulated. FuelWagon 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that juries don't work. I said that juries without judges to instruct them run the risk of mob rule.  If you are arguing for a jury system without judges (as it appeared that you were), then please at least propose some sort of concept or framework that can be brainstormed.  If you are arguing for a jury system with a presiding judge, then please at least propose some sort of concept or framework that can be brainstormed.  Robert McClenon 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I said that when a subjective interpretation of policy is needed, you could use a jury and wouldn't need arbcom. I meant you wouldn't need arbcom to make the interpretation. If you want to have some poeple who are familiar with policy give the jurors instructions on applicable policies, that's fine. but you don't need arbcom to make the interpretation as to whether or not someone violated "harrassment". It is a subjective interpretation that would best be made by jurors. The idea would basically be that a case brought to arbitration would have the same form it always has, all the evidence would be presented by all the parties. You could either have some "judges" or "jurors" acting as judges to simply decide on matters of form, whether something is admissable or not, whether some evidence is relevant or not, whatever. Then when the form is complete, when all the evidence is submitted, you could generate a jury pool to make the actual finding of fact. At that point, you would know all the parties involved, and could apply some sort of objective metric on editors to find out how much interaction they've had to determine whether they can be a juror for a particular case. I proposed an automatic tool for determining this interrelationship between editors here. You could make policy stating that any editor with some number (500?) of edits could be a potential juror. Then they submit their name to this tool, which then looks at all the pending arbitration cases, compares their interactions with the interactions of the editors involved, and assigns them to an arbitration case. Randomness is also an important factor in generating a jury. You don't want silent friends or enemies to be able to sign up for the case they want to judge. You need to have a juror apply to the system and get randomly assigned a case that they are not involved with. If a juror says "I want to decide this case", then its a bit of a sign that they have some sort of investment in the outcome and shouldn't be making the decision there. FuelWagon 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Creationsim
Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor2 looks like it's being used as ammunition in a battle over "who's right" in the evolution-creation debate. Uncle Ed 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? It is incomplete both procedurally and substantively.  It is filed in the wrong place, and it fails to present any case.  Ignore it.  Robert McClenon 20:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Evolutionism isn't even a word, why does he get to make up words? this is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to use words that really exist, not just made up words that make fun of science, yet he creates articles based on these made up words, such as, oh I don't know.. evolutionism a non-word with its own article, oh and evolutionist, and whole host of other non-words with articles, created/defended by guess who--Bah' 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for fun: "The Poverty of Evolutionism: A Critique of Teubner’s Case for Reflexive Law." Law and Society Review (1986) 18, s. 273-289. "Complex Adaptive Systems, Evolutionism, and Ecology within Anthropology: Interdisciplinary Research for Understanding Cultural and Ecological Dynamics," Georgia Journal of Ecological Anthropology, Vol. 2 1998. Cohn, Frederick. Evolutionism and idealism in ethics Omaha, Neb., Press of Douglas printing co., 1909. "Evolutionism, yesterday and tomorrow", Kaleidoscopic past: proceedings of the 5th Nordic TAG Conference, Göteborg, 2-5 April 1997, edited by Anna-Carin Andersson, et al., Göteborg University, Dept. of Archaeology, 1998. El_C 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * evolutionist n. a person who believes in evolution as explaiing the origin of species. evolutionism n. evolutionistic adj. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition). And Evolutionism is a separate article from Evolution why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a separate article now? Well I'll be hounded by felines! Sorry, that's felines! El_C 05:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I'm looking forward to playing the abovetitled Creation sim. It's like you're a god, except that you're science! Of course, evolution is used in other natural and social scientific, cultural and artistic contexts. El_C 05:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Out of Internet access soon, request acceptance of polygamy cases
I will be out of regular Internet access as of 19 October, for nearly 3 weeks. If the polygamy cases are accepted soon, I can present my evidence quickly, then allow other evidence gathering to take place in my absence. Otherwise, there will be a 3 week delay before I can present my evidence.

I request that polygamy be accepted quickly, but can live with a delay. I understand that the arbitrators are busy. Nereocystis 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Today. Goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence and start in. Fred Bauder 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This should fun, or at least lead to a conclusion. :)Nereocystis 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

An Off-the-Wall Question
What if they gave an arbitration and nobody came? I see that one case was accepted for arbitration in late September 2004 and no evidence has been entered yet.

This is sort of a self-answering question. Either evidence will be entered, or the ArbCom will answer the question in how they deal with the case. Robert McClenon 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would this be the "Louis Epstein" case? The impression I got was that, although the user's habits were unusual, he wasn't actively sabotaging Wikipedia and would have been a tricky customer to deal with fairly. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That was the Louis Epstein case. I considered it to be a silly punctuation war.  I think that the filing parties thought that damage was being done because every time he edited a page, he reformatted it to be consistent with his standards, which are not the same as the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  I agree that it would have been a difficult and subtle case.  However, the ArbCom did accept the case, and so presumably was prepared to have to address those subtleties.  However, the filing parties have not entered any evidence.  The complaining parties went to the effort of filing the RfC and then the RfAr, and now have not entered any evidence.  It is true that that means that the arbitrators do not have to decide how to deal with this user.  Robert McClenon 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A Not-So-Off-the-Wall Question
I requested that a case be opened for arbitration. It has been opened. If I would like to suggest that the ArbCom state certain principles about what Wikipedia is and is not as the basis for how the case is decided, is there a specific means for doing this? Can I enter suggested principles in the Workshop subpage, or should I propose them on a talk page? Robert McClenon 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You may put them directly on the /Workshop page. Fred Bauder 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer on Freemasonry
Can we get this case worked on, please? I understand ArbCom is busy, but once the block against him and MSJapan expires for violating 3RR, the edit war will continue, and it's very frustrating. He doesn't listen to consensus, he just does whatever it is he wants to push his POV. Thanks. -- Spinboy 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A temporary injunction is being discussed on this case's workshop. Kelly Martin 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why the long wait?
I was wondering... I understand and respect the fact that the ArbCom takes their time to examine the evidence and draw conclusions. However, I notice that even when a motion or proposed remedy has sufficient votes to pass, it is often not acted upon for several weeks. I can understand waiting for a couple days for the other AC'ers opinion, but waiting for weeks seems over the top. Wouldn't it make sense to put in a motion to close at such a point? Or am I missing something? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Name a case Fred Bauder 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly.
 * Rainbowwarrior, for 8 days but now resolved
 * He was already blocked indefinitely Fred Bauder 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo for 11 days now
 * Two contradictory remedies have passed; we remain deadlocked in our discussion Fred Bauder 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * AVXD for about three weeks
 * Just reopened Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And some older cases, such as Zenmaster (3 weeks), Coolcat (3 weeks), Yuber (3 weeks), Al (2 weeks), Jarlaxle (1 week) and OldRight (1 week)
 * So really my question is, why does it take so long to get from the point where a proposed remedy receives sufficient votes to enact it, to the point where it actually is enacted? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Usually we are discussing something Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that these questions are typical of concerns that the ArbCom process is slow. I see several unavoidable reasons for its slowness.  First is the fact that the arbitrators are volunteers who have other things to do also.  Second is the fact that the arbitrators take their work seriously and act with deliberation.  There are also reasons that are the result of the current ArbCom system that could possibly be addressed by changes, such as having cases heard by panels rather than the entire ArbCom.  I don't know whether this is the right talk page to discuss such ideas.  What do the arbitrators think?  Robert McClenon 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Right page. Not sure what the practical effect of panels would be. Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent was to have all twelve ArbCommers examine every incident. However, with the recent unfortunate burnout rates, many cases have been looked at by substantially less ArbCommers. So that seems like a step in the direction of 'panels', and so far it appears workable. Of course, a side-effect would be the discussion of who gets on which panel; ArbComs are sometimes accused of being personally involved even when they're really not, and the subject of a case may complain that he wants a different panel. A solution would be to make it random. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to think, based on my short involvement with ArbCom, that panels would make matters worse, not better. Some Arbitrators have more time to spend on Arbitration than others, and so the speed at which any case progresses will depend on whether an Arbitrator with lots of free time gets allocated to the case.  Mandatory panels will actually limit our ability to manage our caseload; currently, we can manage it internally.  Let's be careful about instruction creep.  Kelly Martin 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Text moved from User:Gadugi vs. User:Fvw
What a fair hearing I received here. Here's my response, complete with an order issued by the United States District Court, Utah Division from Judge Kimball. You have 3 days to remove the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey from this site after Wales is served. If it's not down by then, I will file an order to show cause. Thanks for the fair treatment and hearing in this matter (NOT!).

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, UTAH DIVISION 10/20/2005 PROCESS OF SERVICE JIMMY WALES WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Certified Receipt Number 7004 2890 0004 7705 2544

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 1058 East 50 South Lindon, Utah 84042 Telephone: (801)427-3547 Facsimile: (801)427-3547 Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S NOTICE OF COURT ORDER TO JIMMY WALES AND WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND WIKIPEDIA

vs.

Case No: 2:05-cv-521 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball Honorable Magistrate Samuel Alba

AL PETROFSKY a.k.a. SCOFACTS.OR, et. al.

Defendant.

TO THE PARTIES NAMED WE SEND GREETINGS: Jimmy Wales Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.com 200 2nd Ave. South Suite 348 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313

Plaintiff Jeffrey Vernon Merkey respectfully serves notice of an order filed in United States District Court placing the Novell/TRG Settlement Agreement under Seal of the Court which is attached at Exhibit 1. It has come to our attention that various individuals on the Internet have posted the terms and excerpts from this sealed document to your website, Wikipedia.com. These materials are strewn throughout the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey and the history and talk pages for this article on your website. It appears that Alan P. Petrofsky has been using your site in concert with one of your administrators, Frank V. Waveren, a member of the Linux Community residing on the Netherlands to post and distribute these materials.

You are served with Notice that these materials are confidential and are subject to an order sealing their contents by the United States District Court. You are respectfully requested to remove such materials immediately from your site. Please feel free to contact me directly at 801-427-3547 for information detailing the specific pages contained on your site which contain these materials.

We thank you in advance for your prompt attention in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED this 20th day of October, 2005.

JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY, Plaintiff

---

Information for arbitration: This is typical behavior for Jeff Merkey... if he does not get what he wants he threatens with lawsuits. See http://scofacts.org/merkey.html for his previous attempt. --Kebron 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem. If the Novell/TRG Settlement Agreement is confidential and notice is served on us that the confidentiality order applies to us, we should comply. The situation was somewhat ambiguous previously; now it is cleared up. Notice that he "respectfully serves notice". Seems to be a gentleman. Fred Bauder 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at the notice again, I wonder how the confidentiality order could apply to us if we were not parties to the case. Fred Bauder 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * At any rate, it quite clear we have absolutely no business trying to arbitrate this matter Fred Bauder 01:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Though he can't seem to actually get the address of this site right; it's wikipedia.org, not wikipedia.com. *Dan T.* 01:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

One more detail... the agreement is NOT on wikipedia... nor are any extracts. How can wikipedia remove something that is not there? --Kebron 02:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible information from the agreement is on Wikipedia, but this is the kind of complicated question of fact and law we are not equipped to resolve. Fred Bauder 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

But there is no logic what so ever in Mr Merkey`s request. First he sued Al Petrofsky (along with a gazillion other people) about their website content. He drops the lawsuits and does not get what he wants. So now... he threatens to sue Wikipedia because Wikipedia reports what he did? I'm sorry but that`s just a bunch of tribble droppings. --Kebron 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur. I have changed my vote to "reject," this matter has grown beyond our ambit. Merkey is banned for life or until all legal matters are cleared up (including this alleged order), whichever comes first. As a banned user, he is estopped from bringing arbitration cases.  &#10149;the Epopt 14:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note, that one of the IP's Merkey has used posted a link to a copy of the settlement on the page, doesn't appear to be consistent with his current indignation. --pgk( talk ) 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)