Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Case Opened on 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties

 * (initiating party)
 * (initiating party)

Statement by Pfagerburg
The issues covered here have been the subject of an Administrator's Noticeboard Incident. I request the ArbCom members read that thread, and apologize in advance for the length of it. I probably should have just linked to the diffs, instead of copying the quotes, too.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was permanently blocked approximately two years ago for making legal threats against Wikipedia regarding his biography. He was allowed to return to Wikipedia earlier this year. Now, instead of threatening to sue over his biography, he is threatening that other parties will sue over the content of Indian-related articles unless he is allowed to exercise editorial control over those articles.

Mr. Merkey has been making tendentious edits to various Cherokee articles, excising information about groups which are not part of the federally-recognized Cherokee tribe, and labelling those groups as "wannabees". When asked to justify these edits, he has claimed that Wikipedia will be civilly and criminally liable if a person or persons who are not members of the federally-recognized tribe are allowed to claim that they are.
 * Tendentious Edits backed by nebulous Legal Threats of action by a third party

Rather than threaten that he will sue Wikipedia, which would obviously violate WP:NLT, Mr. Merkey has repeatedly claimed that various Indian tribes will sue Wikipedia. He claims to be in off-wiki communication with at least one tribe that is "close to being pushed to do it."

Mr. Merkey's alleged threats of legal action by a third party against Wikipedia (links copied from the AN/I) are:. In each case, he at least hinted, and usually stated outright, that some Indian group or another will sue, Wikipedia will be civilly liable, or criminally liable, or a court order obtained by the tribes will override the 1st Amendment for Wikipedia.

Despite being asked at least twice prior to the AN/I, and several times by other editors during the AN/I, Mr. Merkey has failed to cite the Federal law upon which his claims rely.

He has also declined to clarify whether the offense is the claim in and of itself, or making the false claim and performing some other prohibited action (i.e. smoking peyote, possessing eagle feathers, etc.) that is permitted only to members of federally-recognized Indian tribes.

Mr. Merkey has already claimed to have the information as to which federal law makes it a felony and makes Wikipedia liable, but has not, to my knowledge, provided it to the several editors who have requested it.

Mr. Merkey's comments and edit summaries amount to him saying, "if this article isn't editted to my taste, then the Indian tribes will sue Wikipedia out of existence! Now let me have my way!" Even if that doesn't violate the letter of WP:NLT, it still violates the spirit of it.

I stipulate that due to my dealings with Mr. Merkey on Wikipedia, I have a conflict of interest related to Mr. Merkey's biography on Wikipedia. I fully expect that ArbCom will issue a topic ban to me. When (not if) the ban is issued, I will ask for clarification of specifics if I feel it's needed.
 * Conflict of Interest on Mr. Merkey's biography, and the expected topic ban

Mr. Merkey has also claimed that I am a former defendant in Merkey v. Perens, and that this presents an additional conflict of interest. I state that I am not, and was never, a party to Merkey v. Perens. This does not affect a topic ban, or the COI generated by my dealings with Mr. Merkey on WP. I just want it clarified that I was never a party to this lawsuit.

Mr. Merkey has claimed that I am stalking him on Wikipedia. I deny this allegation. He is disrupting Wikipedia with his dubious legal theories and tendentious editting, and I am attempting to squelch this disruption.
 * Accusations of trolling, stalking, and extortion

Even if ArbCom finds that his accusation has merit, it does not change the substance of the WP:NLT complaint. I ask ArbCom to rule separately on these two issues, WP:NLT and WP:HARASS.

If you assume, for the purposes of this question, that I am a troll, does the fact that a troll asked a perfectly valid question ("please cite the federal law upon which you are relying") make the question any less valid?

In the AN/I, Mr. Merkey claimed that I want money ("$$$$$") from him or from Novell, as if I was trying to extort money from him in exchange for my silence. I categorically deny this, and demand that Mr. Merkey provide proof of his allegation that I asked for money from him or from Novell.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Mr. Merkey must:
 * Desired Outcome
 * 1) cite the federal law which makes a false claim of being an Indian (i.e. claiming to be a member of a federally recognized tribe when one is not) a crime in and of itself,
 * 2) cite the federal law which makes Wikipedia civilly and criminally liable for false claims of "Indian-ness" in various articles, and
 * 3) provide information which shows that the standard disclaimer is not an effective defense against the federal laws he cites for items 1 and 2.
 * 4) provide proof that I am a former defendant in Merkey v. Perens
 * 5) provide proof that I have requested money from him or from Novell

If Mr. Merkey refuses to provide this information, or it does not support his position, I request that his previous lifetime ban for making legal threats against Wikipedia be re-instated.

Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

 * Background

Of the 1,900,000 articles which exist on Wikipedia, the initiator of this ArbCom lighted on Wikipedia and edited my bio as his primary choice. This same user then followed me around the site and while in tandem cross posting personal attacks, libel, and legal threats and baiting to the Yahoo SCOX Message Board. Other users have acted in concert with this user who also have their origins on the Yahoo SCOX Message Board with similar conduct. After editing my biography, this user and others with him engaged in a pattern of conduct which violates Wikipedia's rules, i.e. WP:HARASS. Based upon information, evidence, and belief, this user came to Wikipedia not to work on an encyclopedia, but to engage in a pattern of harassment which violates Wikipedia's rules, harassment designed to gratify this users desire to continue the public torment and stalking engaged in by the SCOX Message Board. Thousands upon thousands of creepy, sinister, defamatory, and harassing postings have been placed on the internet by these users on both Wikipedia and the Yahoo SCOX Message Board requiring Jimbo Wales to personally delete the bio and 700 edits as well as the talk page.

It is unreasonable to believe that this user would happen to "bump into me" on related articles, such as those involving Native American content and involve editing disputes. Indeed, the strict evidence clearly indicates this user is here to harass, through Wikipedia processes and editing, another editor. It is neither reasonable, nor logical to believe they are here for any other purpose.

It is well documented that the Wikipedia bio concerning me was created, conceived, and edited by banned user User:Vigilant and other SCOX users as a vehicle for misuse of Wikipedia as an instrument of public libel. Voluminous evidence exists and has been subjected to serious scrutiny by Wikipedia to substantiate these claims. Even Jimbo Wales publicly commented the edits of my bio by these editors was and I quote "inserting libel and tabloid materials into our project".


 * Unclean Hands

This ArbCom request should be dismissed as to this user on the grounds they come before the arbcom with unclean hands. This user is one of the editors using my bio as an instrument of libel, and now that the "fun" has gone out of that has resorted to stalking me on the project and submitting time wasting ArbCom proceedings, revert warring, and other forms of "playing the system" for their own enjoyment. Several other editors have commented these people are "playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute". Another user not involved with my bio or a self-proclaimed internet stalker should come forward and raise these issues if they are that much of a concern. This user should not be allowed since it merely turns Wikipedia into a three ring circus.


 * Balancing the Equities

My initial exposure to Wikipedia was not a good one. I was given "baptism by fire" as the result of a libelous bio being posted to Wikipedia and my complete lack of understanding of the project. During my initial ban after I had resolved my legal disputes with the Foundation, I wrote and shared free utilities, advanced language software, lexicons, language tools for MediaWiki, and I even host the Sep 11 Wiki for the foundation in an attempt to mend the issues my bio and the actions of this group of internet trolls inflicted on the project. These are not the actions of a disruptive person, but a sincere and hard working individual enhancing MediaWiki technology and the overall project. I am more immersed in MediaWiki technology than most of the members of this ArbCom and the admins on the project. I even created the ability to replicate the entire project and open sourced the tools to do so.

This does not place me on the same level of the initiator. His only contributions have been to insert libel and disrupt the project with abuse of the projects processes and harassing banter on the SCOX message board and Wikipedia. In essence turning the Wikipedia project into a usenet style extension of the SCOX message board along with his associates who post there. The current situation has transformed the project into a gladitorial colosseum with the SCOX message board watching and cross-posting the cause and affect of each edit I make or others make on the project.

Given these facts, the equities are disproportionate in this matter. I do not believe the initiator of this proceeding has standing to bring this action and the Wikipedia community also has failed to live up to its promises to the general public and editors on the project by allowing a level of harassment which exceeds reasonable expectations. When the trolling from these people began, this community gave me assurances it would not be tolerated. This has not been the course followed in every case.

Given these facts, the equities would indicate that issues raised about my reactions to the behavior of these editors involve mitigating circumstances. Given that it has been established by the evidence I have been a victim of trolling, stalking, and harassment, it should come as no surprise that I have exercised enormous patience with editors on this site since I have and continue to be a target of harrassment by these folks. I seriously doubt any other editor would have or could have endured it to this point without a few hiccups along the way. In areas where I have not, I do not believe it has risen to a level that requires these types of reviews. It simply furthers the harassment.


 * Attribution of My Statements to Third Parties

It has been alleged I am making legal threats on behalf of third parties. This is quite a stretch. I do not represent any third parties other than myself, nor have I ever represented that I do. Is this an open forum or subject to censure? Native American Issues involve a confusing web of intersecting laws and regulations. Discussing the impacts of these issues should not be discouraged or banned, and in fact, is contrary to the projects goals of creating an accurate, concise, and sourced encyclopedia. I find no legal threats anywhere on behalf of third parties. I do find discussion of liability issues involving certain classes of content. What about child pornography? Is it a crime for it to exist on Wikipedia? YES. Should we warn someone or discuss why it should not be on Wikipedia in the article about child molestation? YES. Should concerned editors attempt to discuss and dissuade other editors from placing it here? YES. False materials about Native American entities fall under similar laws -- laws which involve discretionary options to prosecute and are very confusing. One such argument is the classification of Indians as a political and not racial category. The general public, due to Hollywood movies and the American Indian mystique assume indianness is racial. The Federal Government says its political and not racial in nature. This is why the Cherokee Freedmen can be tribal members, based upon a political treaty, not racial descent. Such misperceptions and accuracy require correctness. These misperceptions have gotten a lot of people into trouble due to the misleading nature of such content.


 * Authorities

There are Federal statutes make it a felony to impersonate an American Indian. Wikipedia hosting such content could make it liable in the same way posting child pornography or classes of materials which violate WP:BLP under Federal and Florida Laws make it liable. Since any editor who subsequently edits such content can also be held responsible for it, it is reasonable to warn other editors of potential issues if they involve an area of Native American Sovereignty with materials which do not meet the requirements of verifiability. Wikipedia has not authority to "recognize" any group of people as "American Indians" and in fact, could be a violation of the law, depending on the circumstances. I proposed WP:NATIVE as Wikipedia policy. It is essence avoids these pitfalls. Most of the editors disagree because they do not understand the laws surrounding these issues. My discussions were an attempt to increase the understanding of other editors. If they were perceived as "nebulous legal threats on behalf of unknown third parties" then I withdraw any such statements. For something to be a legal threat, I believe it would have to identify the parties (X and the Foundation, user X and user Y, etc.). There are no directed legal threats in any of my postings -- on behalf of third parties or otherwise. During mediation, I explained the background of my concerns in this area on the talk page for Cherokee. Also, in the main body of the article is a sourced statement where the United States Attorney was quoted as saying "fraudlently claiming to be a Native American violates Federal laws." I can list all of the laws if this is really necessary and the statements of the US Attorney are insufficient.

If I am really being asked to list all the statutes (there is a long list) I will do so, but it will take some time. Is this really necessary and if so, one of the arbitrators can respond at the bottom of this statement, and I will do so.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
I make a formal motion to dismiss all of the causes and claims alleged in the complaint from User:Pfagerburg on the grounds this user lacks standing, comes before the arbcom with unclean hands, and on the grounds no genuine issue of fact exists in the matter as to the claims of the initiator. Any misconstrued statements have been addressed and clarified.

I further move that my account be sysoped to deal with these trolls effectively. It is counterproductive for each admin I encounter to "see for themselves" before these trolls are dealt with. Blocks and bans can be reviewed by the arbcom. I will assure this arbcom, these trolls will very quickly leave this site in such a case since harassing me will result in an indefinite blocks. This blocks can be reviewed by the arbcom if necessary. This will take the "fun" out of it for this group of trolls. I am more familiar with MediaWiki than most of the admins, and I am extremely familiar with the tools since I run several mirror of Wikipedia already.

I also move to add ^demon as a party for violating the Foundations non-discrimination policy and for harassment for targeting and harassing another editor solely based upon his heterosexual orientation. Sufficient evidence exists based on comments to this page, including acting in concert with Al Petrofsky, a user currently under a Federal Court order to cease distribution and online harassment of the subject of this arbcom. User ^demon embarked on a personal vendetta and perists.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I noticed Newyorkbrad removed me, pending Arbitrator confirmation of this motion to add me. I am voluntarily re-adding myself as a party, as I wish to see this arbitration through and refute Merkey's unsubstantiated claims against myself and my fellow editors. ^ demon [omg plz] 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept to examine the behavior of all involved parties. FloNight 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept, though I do wonder why anyone thinks "My pal is going to sue you" is any less of a legal threat than "I'm going to sue you". I mean, "quack". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. SimonP 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Wikipedia is not a court of law
1) While certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process may resemble their real-world legal counterparts, they are not identical to them, and do not follow the same rules and procedures.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
2) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive. See "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not" policy.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere
3) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other web sites, is extremely disruptive.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats
4.1) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Those editors who wish to utilize a court of law to resolve disputes with other editors may not use Wikipedia pages for communications preparatory to such actions.

Editors encountering content which may be a copyright violation or which may be libelous are encouraged to follow established procedures for dealing with such matters. Editors encountering unencyclopedic content are encouraged to improve it or remove it using the customary means. In those rare cases where legitimate encyclopedic content appears to create legal exposure for the Wikimedia Foundation, a volunteer for the foundation should be contacted for guidance.

Editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against the Foundation are encouraged to inform the Foundation privately of the facts of the matter. Similarly, editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against another editor are encouraged to contact the affected editor privately.

Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a respectful, non-threatening fashion.
 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
2) was indefinitely banned under a previous account, but was recently allowed to resume editing.  Merkey has a history of making legal threats , most recently alleging that the Wikimedia Foundation could be civilly or criminally liable for allowing certain groups to claim membership in a Native American tribe (, , , , , , ; see also NativeWarn).


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg
3) has fewer than 200 edits, the majority of which relate to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in some manner.  He has made edits to  that tend to cast Merkey in a bad light (,, , , , ,, ,). Pfagerburg made a complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard  regarding Merkey's use of legal threats in a content dispute.  Pfagerburg was not previously involved in the dispute, except for two comments , and had never edited any of the related articles or their talk pages. In this context, given Pfagerburg's lack of prior interest in the topic, and previous interest specifically in Merkey's alleged propensity for filing lawsuits, his involving himself in the Native American dispute constituted harassment.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron
4) As noted here, is a single-purpose account that generally acts to oppose Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.  Kebron's first edits were to User talk:Gadugi, referencing a dispute on the Yahoo SCOX message board ; he has continued to monitor the edits of, making complaints and particpating in discussions at the Administrators' Noticeboard in which he was not a stakeholder.  He has agressively pursued Merkey's former accounts and sockpuppets ; has edit warred with Merkey but ignored the resulting mediation; and created Southern Cherokee Nation, a copyvio, to make a point while in a dispute with Merkey at Talk:Cherokee. While no single edit stands out as particularly incivil or harassing, Kebron's overall edit history constitutes harassment of Merkey.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on legal threat parole
2.1) is placed on permanent legal threat parole.  Any uninvolved administrator may indefinitely block him if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg banned
3) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron banned
4) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 30 July 2007, Newyorkbrad blocked Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, Pfagerburg, and Kebron, each for 1 year, to implement the Arbitration Committee's decision
 * 3 April 2008, Coren blocked 166.70.235.40/29 at least two addresses of which range have been obviously used by Mr. Merky. Ban reset.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12 August 2008, User:SirFozzie blocked 69.2.248.210 which was being used by JVM to evade his ban. Ban Reset. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8 September 2008, User:Werdna indefinitely blocked Jeffrey Vernon Merkey following alleged off-wiki harassment. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * note: added Alleged to 'off-wiki harassment' see tha AN:I section.--Duk 11:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry indefinitely blocked User:Jvmphoto as a sockpuppet of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, especially with regard to the 'Jeff V. Merkey' thread of ANI. [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry] (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)