Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Off-wiki discussions relating to Mr. Merkey and Wikipedia have taken place
Mr. Merkey has been a topic of discussion at an off-wiki message board, namely the Yahoo Finance SCOX message board. The discussion, involving many posters, has been anything but flattering and polite.

My entire posting history on that board may be seen here. Before it can be brought up as "look what he's hiding!" I will point out several posts. Yahoo's interface for viewing older messages sucks, so I apologize if it's difficult to find the exact post. I have quoted some things to make it easier to find.


 * "Oooh, did I get somebody's goat by posting some information about a "kill file" or how a company chose their name ELEVEN YEARS before a claim that the name of the company was an intentional infliction of emotional distress?


 * "I did have great fun poking Jeff with a stick, the stick being the FACTS about his cases, but I realized I was wasting my time, so I gave up on it."

From another post in that same thread:
 * "I (pfagerburg, here and on wikipedia) posted some factual, verifiable, and yes, unflattering information on the Jeff V. Merkey page on wikipedia. Mr. Merkey was the author of some of that information - claims that an "e-mail kill file" was "a list of people to be killed," or that a company chose to be named "Natural Selections Food" eleven years before a large number of people were sickened by an e. coli outbreak in their products, and that using their name in press releases was a deliberate infliction of emotional distress, an underhanded attempt to say that the victims of the accidental food poisioning were unfit to survive.


 * "So I posted that factual information. So what?"

And right there (or sooner), I should have committed to never edit his bio page again. But I did anyway a few months later, in early May. There's the COI, and there's no covering it up or "well, you're taking it out of context."

There are other posts of mine which mention Mr. Merkey and Wikipedia. None of them advocate any disruption of Wikipedia nor stalking him on Wikipedia, contrary to Mr. Merkey's claims that I have coordinated attacks and disruption from the SCOX message board.

In this thread, there is discussion about Mr. Merkey's edits to Eric Schmidt's biography (which were gross violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:V and WP:RS). I mocked his claim of having a 190 IQ, and pointed to his edit history showing multiple self-corrections as evidence to the contrary. Then the discussion meandered to the claim of a $500,000 donation to Wikipedia. And finally some bafflement as to his apparent fascination with Wikipedia's alleged connection to pornography.

I mentioned my request on Wikipedia for Mr. Merkey to provide a relevant citation of federal law, and the silence that followed. 

Mr. Merkey's claim that others on the SCOX message board follow his every post on Wikipedia is provably true. RomanianConnection, who has claimed to be User:Vigilant, seems to be the main poster of all things related to Mr. Merkey and Wikipedia. Even this ArbCom got a mention from another poster a few hours after I opened it. For the record, I am not RomanianConnection.

I admit that I became aware of Mr. Merkey's tendentious editting and his legal threats via the SCOX board. I believe it was this message, posted by "truth_in_adverts" on 6 May 2007 at 4:44 PM.

I admit that I've been incivil to Mr. Merkey off-wiki. That has generated a COI, which I either did not recognize at the time, or ignored. The incivility off-wiki is not germane (wish I had the diff, but one admin said, "we don't punish for off-wiki behaviour") except that it validates a finding of COI. And editing Mr. Merkey's biography despite the COI (even though I backed everything with a citation) warrants a topic ban.

I admit that I have trolled Mr. Merkey and suspected sockpuppets on the SCOX message board.

I deny that I have trolled Mr. Merkey on Wikipedia. Serious COI, yes, but not trolling.

I deny Mr. Merkey's claim that I have coordinated any trolling of him through the SCOX message board or any other medium.

I've been more than fair in pointing out my missteps and misdeeds, in the interest of not bogging down the arbitration process.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has made legal threats against Wikipedia
The evidence of legal threats has already been provided in the ArbReq, thirteen separate diffs showing a variety of phrasings, but all boiling down to the same thing: if the article is not edited to meet Mr. Merkey's demands, then Wikipedia will be sued by various Indian tribes.

Mr. Merkey stated in the ArbReq "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." This statement should be viewed in light of his previous claim that he is already in possession of the relevant information.

Mr. Merkey's example (also in the ArbReq) of child pornography on Wikipedia is somewhat germane. Consider this hypothetical timeline: This is all good and proper; there was a question about which law applied, and the question was answered.
 * 1) An editor uploads child pornography (US Federal Law definition) to Wikipedia.
 * 2) The image is speedily deleted.
 * 3) The editor asks why the image was deleted.
 * 4) The response is "that's illegal material. Do you want to get us all thrown in jail?  The feds don't mess around with that sort of stuff."
 * 5) The editor disputes this, and demands to know the law.
 * 6) The response is "US Code title XX, Section YY. BTW, it will be listed on the indictment that the feds will bring to you soon, because we reported the material and your contact information.  HTH, HAND."

And here is how that example relates to the instant dispute:
 * 1) Other editors have placed material about people who claim to be Cherokee, but are not members of the federally-recognized Cherokee Nation/Tribe/unsure of the term.
 * 2) Mr. Merkey removed that material, and added the POV comment that these groups are "wannabees."
 * 3) The editors asked why he removed it.
 * 4) Mr. Merkey responded (paraphrased) "it's illegal to make a claim of being an Indian unless you are a member of a federally recognized tribe. Wikipedia will get sued out of existence for giving these wannabe groups a platform to advance their false claims."
 * 5) Several parties have asked for specific citations of the federal law or laws.
 * 6) Mr. Merkey responded (paraphrased) "I have a legal brief that answers these questions. I'll provide it shortly."  Almost two weeks ago.  And during that time, he continued to re-state the claim that Wikipedia is in imminent legal danger unless the Indian articles were edited to match his POV.

Following the duck test, these statements are legal threats. And since the only way to avoid those threats, so we are told, is by acquiescing to Mr. Merkey's demands re the articles, those threats are attributable directly to him for the purposes of WP:NLT.

Legal Threats Continue During Arbitration
See.

Pfagerburg

 * On July 11, Pfagerburg inserted himself into a disagreement at Talk:Native American identity in the United States between Merkey and other editors; he had never previously edited this article or talk page or any related topics.
 * On July 11, Pfagerburg came to the defense of Kebron at AN/I, Pfagerburg's first post to AN/I
 * On July 17, PFagerburg reported to AN/I a dispute involving Mr. Merkey and other editors over the issue of whether Wikipedia might be legally liable over a content dispute over who can call themself a Native American.  Note that Pfagerburg had not actually participated in the dispute, which was mostly at Talk:Cherokee, and that Pfagerburg's complaint was over 1300 words.

Kebron is a single purpose account
is a single purpose account focused on Jeff Merkey and his interests ''EXCUSE ME???????? Police and law enforcement officials have been sent to YAHOO??? REALLY??? What is this fantasy? Do you actually expect us to believe that IF such an event occured there would be not be an article SOMEWHERE by some newspaper reporter? Do you expect us to believe someone who just DELETES any post he sees as innacurate instead of trying to logically explain the facts. Please explain to us the so called police action that occured''
 * Kebron's first edits are to User talk:Gadugi on 20 Sept 2005 (admins can view), referencing controversy on the SCOX Yahoo message board. Examples,

"I believe the correct vernacular at this time would be (Insert whiny voice here) 'But you started it !!!!' You made statements that seemed... exaggerated, incorrect or simply an ouright lie... I am seeking clarification while you are getting defensive and hostile. My comments could be considered constructive commentary to the population of Wikipedia on the character and reputation on the current editor know as Gadugi aka Jeff V. Merkey --Kebron 19:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)"


 * Kebron has about 100 deleted edits all related to Jeff Merkey, including his article and talk pages of various Merkey sockpuppets.
 * April 2006, monitoring Merkey's activities
 * May 2006, adding negative information to Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/to do
 * Much editing interest to Pamela Jones, a blogger critical of The SCO Group, Groklaw, a related blog; this has to do with a dispute over Linux that Merkey is involved with. See also Pfagerburg's evidence that the Yahoo SCOX discussion group has been used to troll Merkey.


 * On May 15, Kebron and JVM get into an edit war over the issue of tribal identity . The dispute at Talk:Cherokee seems to have been mostly settled  by 23 June after mediation by User:Phaedriel.  Kebron did not particpate in the mediation, and his last edit to Talk:Cherokee was You know what I give up. Look at Merkey's record... he is a liar. I give up... y'all deal with this idiot.


 * Blocked for trolling on AN/I
 * Nominated a category created by Merkey for deletion


 * Edit war flared up again in July at . Kebron did not participate, but monitored the controversy.

Kebron opposes Merkey's edits

 * Merkey began editing on 2 May 2007. He heavily edited Cherokee during his first days, prompting a user to note on the talk page Lots of unexplained removals by one user. In the midst of a reasonable discussion, Kebron jumped in . This was Kebron's first ever edit to a topic related to Native Americans.


 * Deletion nominations targeting Merkey
 * Category:Massacres by Mormons, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_22
 * Category:Native American Recognition Controversies, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_12
 * Template:NativeWarn, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_12
 * Note these were all nominated one day after Merkey created them, suggesting Kebron is monitoring Merkey's edits
 * Merkey nominated Native American identity in the United States for deletion on July 6. On July 8 and again on July 10, Kebron removed the AfD tag from the article, citing consensus.  The AfD was formally closed late on July 10 after Merkey, citing improvements to the article, withdrew his nom.  It seems inconceivable that Kebron would just happen upon this debate unless he was monitoring Merkey's edits.
 * On May 12, Kebron created Southern Cherokee Nation after being involved in a dispute with Merkey over Native identification at Wikipedia talk:Native American Tribes and Talk:Cherokee. Kebron opposed Merkey's deletion nomination at Articles for deletion/Southern Cherokee Nation. (The article was speedy-deleted as a copyvio).

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey since May 2007

 * Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2


 * 1) Merkey is excessively legalistic, see the creation of WP:Right to edit (deleted version ). "Any contributor or visitor has a "right to edit" articles on Wikipedia because the Wikimedia Foundation has stated this is the "Free Encyclopedia anyone can edit". The Foundation makes these representations to the general public as a non-profit charity in order to solicit donations. If these statements were untrue, for example, all contributors to the Foundation could demand their money back and claim the Wikimedia Foundation is a fradulent charity, and potentially seize all of the Foundations assets."
 * 2) Attempts to assert during his RFC that because the Foundation solicits donations based on a representation of "anyone can edit", the community can not make policies to restrict that. "If the Foundation takes money based upon public representations, this community does not have the power to set any policies apart from those the Foundation allows."
 * 3) The message Merkey took home from the RfC was "Jeff is being trolled" "Jeff may get the trolls blocked" "Jeff should not assume all of them are trolls, and try to trust others." and kind words from SirFozzie.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was previously blocked indefinitely for legal threats under a prior account
On October 15, 2005, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, editing as Gadugi, was blocked indefinitely for "Personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption, ..." The account Gadugi remained blocked until May 2, 2007, when it was unblocked by Duk, along with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. John254 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous Merkey-related arbitration requests, RFC, et cetera
====October 9, 2005: "67.177.35.25 vs. Fvw, Pgk, Exabit, Kebron, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Mjpieters and Redwolf24"==== Merkey requests arbitration after his original Gadugi account was blocked for "continuing legal threats".

Result: Arbitrators vote to "Reject until all legal disputes have been resolved".

October 20, 2005: "User:Gadugi vs. User:Fvw"
Merkey requests arbitration after he was blocked by Fvw for "Personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption, ...". Fvw had explained: "I think he's had his fair share of second chances now; I've blocked him indefinitely".

Result: Arbitrators vote to "reject due to litigitiousness of party".

March 12, 2006: "Waya sahoni and WP:RS vs. SCOX and Linux Community Editors"
Merkey requests arbitration, seeking that several users be barred from editing his biography.

Result: Deemed "dormant" when Merkey is indefinitely blocked for legal threats.

April 16, 2006: "Banned by the Wikipedia community"
Merkey is added to this list, which, at the time, is defined like so: "As per the blocking and banning policies, a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them. In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community."

December 20, 2006: "Right to vanish, another case"
Jimbo Wales, after making several edits removing information about Merkey (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and deleting the talk page of Merkey's original Gadugi account, explains on WP:AN that he "removed the BAN since it is essentially become moot since Mr. Merkey has little interest or time to focus as an editor", and "This is a courtesy, contingent of course on continued good behavior".

May 1, 2007: "Jeff Merkey wishes to return to en:wp"
Merkey's request to return is discussed on AN/I. Chick Bowen writes: "If he comes back, the history of his talk page should be undeleted (and he should know this in advance, lest he demur). I think if he follows policy, then he should be welcome, but no start-over." This suggestion is ignored.

Result: Merkey is allowed to create the new Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey account and resume editing.

May 24, 2007: "Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2"
An RFC by Hipocrite alleges Merkey "has engaged in repeated edit wars, has violated NPOV, and regularly fails to assume good faith".

Result: closed when Merkey is indefinitely blocked for "Massive disruption".

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey makes unsubstantiated claims about me
In response to my suggesting an indef ban for him, he then added me as a party to Arbitration notified me. All of this was supposedly because I carry some anti-heterosexual agenda and have been stalking him across wiki. If he can find a single diff of me ever violating the non-discrimination policy, especially in regards to him, I will indef ban myself and have my sysop bit revoked. Until I blocked him the other day for his massive disruption on WP:ANI, I had never crossed paths with him. He also states that I have "been collaborating off-site with an individual who is currently under a Federal Court order in violation of Wikipedia Policies, and United States Laws.". I only know one Wikipedian in real life, and is far from under a Federal Court order. This is plainly made up in an effort to keep ArbCom from focusing on the true locus of this dispute, the absolutely intolerable and anti-policy (specifically, WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL) actions of Merkey himself.

Evidence presented by Smmurphy(Talk)
Having drafted a statement, I am struck by what it is I have created. Our project is generally opposed to the creation or synthesis of original material. And now I am interacting with this high body whose job is, in a sense, to pass judgment, to make opinion, and to allow other editors something from within wikipedia to cite. And looking over what I have written, I see that anyone who would describe a conflict which they have been involved in with the detail that such a process as this might require should perhaps not be fully trusted. Such a person must be a little obsessed with an issue, a bit crazy indeed. With this in mind, I would like to submit my own experiences and opinions. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests regarding my statement/evidence.

Pfagerburg has brought this request as one which is about legal threats. I think that this might be because No legal threats is "official policy," and thus it seems to be the way to bring the strongest case against Jeffrey. However, my chief complaints are violations of "behavioral guidelines:" Etiquette, Assume good faith, Disruptive editing, and Please do not bite the newcomers. I would like to give my side of the story and illustrate these issues.

Dispute at Cherokee
My interaction with Jeffrey began on the Cherokee page. There has long been discussion about who is and is not Cherokee there, starting with who to include in a list (see various discussions at Talk:Cherokee/Archive 1). I've always taken a rather inclusive view that anyone who says they are Cherokee (usually meaning "of Cherokee descent") can be included, although I and others have pushed for citations of this (I wasn't really a part of the discussion about Jeffrey's inclusion in the list, but the discussion their was about citation). In early May, Jeffrey revisited the page (now mostly under his current username), and pushed for the definition of Cherokee based on federal recognition. This edit war was fought between Jeffrey and User:Kebron, who left the discussion shortly after I joined. I was not familiar with Kebron at the time, and would have taken a much stronger pro-Jeffrey approach from the beginning had I known. In any case, Jeffrey's comments were occasionally disruptive, due to the fact that some on the talk page were trolling him. For a sample of the discussion, see Talk:Cherokee/Archive 2, which is one of the sections where Jeffrey threatens legal action by tribes for material (this is documented by others, an example is ), and tries to intemidate other editors due to his being Cherokee and thus an expert of sorts. I proposed a compromise was to include a discussion about the different definitions, but this was unsatisfactory. Much of the early dispute was over what compromised a relaible source in this matter. Jeffrey and I had a side discussion about that and about the right to edit wikipedia on his talk page at that time. This conversation was a bit heated at times, and Jeffrey continued to hold many of the same ideas about editing. After informal mediation at the Cherokee article with the gracious help of User:Phaedriel, I still disagreed with Jeffrey over the scope of the page (Talk:Cherokee), and I was asked to leave off editing the page for a while.

Dispute at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy
During the time of the discussion at Cherokee, I made some major edits to a related article, Cherokee Freedmen Controversy (May 15 edits,, Jeffrey was cordial, and thanked me for my work at the time ). New editor, User:Stormshadows00 made some edits there on June 6, which were removed by Jeffrey, and which I put back. The edits took rewrote the summary of the event which was there before I edited the article, and which I left unchanged so that the entirety of the article could be paired down into a proper lead later. Stormshadows00's material was well (but not perfectly) cited, and over time what was uncited has mostly been cited. However, after explaining my reversion of Jeffrey's removal, his response was very strongly worded and negative (due to our previous dispute, no doubt). This dispute led to Jeffrey claiming that Stormshadows00, I, and another editor were possibly socks (see Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive270, Jeffrey did not formally request a checkuser or start a sock investigation). In the discussion, Jeffrey commented on my talk page that I may have a conflict of interests, as I edit other pages related to African Americans (the edit summary and revert he discusses is here, I think). This comment was probably the oddest he made to me; I don't want to editorialize it more than that, but I do not think the comment to be constructive. The discussion at the article's talk page was heated, and Stormshadows00 complains in it that he is treated unfairly and without respect, especially as he is a new user (a claim with Jeffrey refutes) (see Talk:Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and Talk:Cherokee_Freedmen_Controversy for debate between Stormshadows00, Jeffrey, and myself).

Dispute at Native American identity in the United States
In early July, I created an article from the material on the definition of Cherokee, Native American identity in the United States, after a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This article gives the position of various academics on the question of federal, state, personal, etc definitions of Native American. I ask forgiveness if the article is in part WP:POINT; it was mostly written because I had the materials from earlier, and felt that I could write something from them, and I only brought it live after encouragement from the relevant wikiproject. Jeffrey states that he believes it is illegal to claim to be a Native American when you are not in a debate surrounding this article, which is mostly captured in Talk:Native American identity in the United States. This claim led to the recent discussion at AN/I and in part to the recent short blocks (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273).

My feelings
I have mostly avoided the discussion at AN/I, some have found it generally unfruitful to discuss issues involving Jeffrey there, although trolls cause that as much as Jeffrey himself. Even so, I have found it difficult to work with Jeffrey. His suspicion about new users being trolls leads to his being ungracious towards new editors and editors who don't have broad interests (Stormshadows00 incident at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy). His participation in a legal case involving illegal usage of peyote by someone falsely claiming that he can because he is Native American as well as his own membership in the Cherokee Nation gives him some experience and insight into debates at Cherokee and Native American identity. However, he is less than humble about this, and he has attempted to use it to intimidate others, etc.

Pfagerburg asks that Jeffrey "prove" some of the claims he has made. I suppose that would be interesting, and would shape how I see Jeffrey's actions somewhat. However, I am not personally interested in proofs and citations per se. I'd love to have them in as much as they would add to encyclopedic content somewhere. But I would like to see that Jeffrey's behavior change. Obviously, he has had personal off-wiki discussion about his behavior on wikipedia, from my understanding particularly with User:JzG (noted at ) and perhaps even User:Jimbo Wales, himself. I do not know more about those discussions. I don't think he wants to change, as he believes he is justified due to the trolling and negativity he receives here and elsewhere on the internet. But, I don't think that he necessarily should be banned. He is an expert on various things. He has shown a willingness to get involved in different articles and to add good material. But if he is allowed to continue, I wish that he cite every comment he makes where a citation is relevant. And I wish it that every non trivial dispute he has with another editor was brought to the attention of respected editors and quickly dealt with. And I wish Jeffrey were free of trolling, so that he could participate in a more fair environment, and so he could prove himself to be a fine wikipedian.

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is too accusatory toward other editors
My dealings with Merkey have been limited, but unpleasant. I don't know much or care much about the current dispute but I believe this evidence helps demonstrate his difficulties working usefully with other editors. I closed what I saw as an unreasonable AFD nomination and left him this note explaining myself. He responded with irrelevancies, completely missing the point, and in my view, demonstrating that he's got an axe to grind. Given his attitude toward LDS members, I'm not at all surprised he's demonstrating similar prejudices against other groups. I left him a caution about his attitude and he only responded by accusing other editors of bad behavior. Sadly, it's true that some other editors have behaved inappropriately toward him, but it's sadder yet that he apparently believes this excuses his own bad behavior. Anyway, this same sort of thing goes on and on. The other couple things I wanted to point out are this and this, where Merkey suggests I have a conflict of interest and says that if I'm an LDS member myself, I ought to be desysopped. Anyway, like I said, not exactly relevant to the current dispute but I believe this helps establish a problematic pattern of behavior on Merkey's part. In addition to throwing around accusations of trolling, he frequently suspects people are members of one of his various disliked groups and thus he believes that they are unable to deal fairly with him. The irony would be amusing, if he weren't being disruptive. Friday (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Alanyst
Despite this arbitration's focus on Merkey's legal threats and the harassment by SPAs, I think there's plenty of evidence that Merkey is a chronically problematic editor. I have occasionally seen rational, collaborative contributions from him, but those are the exception rather than the rule. His general pattern is to contribute original research and make outlandish claims in articles and on talk pages, and then to attack editors who call his edits into question. Notably, this behavior is not related to provocations by the SCOX crowd. Here's some evidence:

Merkey's pattern of contributing original research
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey contributes a great deal of original research to articles to further his POV:
 * Created Mormon men in black (speedily deleted; see )
 * &mdash;tagged his own edit as OR (!)
 * 
 * 
 * Edit and tagging wars over his OR when it is removed or reworded
 * see edit summary
 * The edit sequence, , , , and
 * Responds to my request for citations at and  with  ("I have done sufficient research on these plants and the sources pertaining to them for years. I can identify them in the field and I collect them as well.") and personal anecdotes in  and.

Merkey's pattern of attacking editors
Merkey attacks editors who question or dispute his edits or claims, either by accusing them of trolling or harassment, or by seeking to disqualify them from the discussion so he doesn't have to answer their questions:
 * Accusations of trolling: in edit summary, another edit summary, and another,, another edit summary
 * Accusations of harassment:, in edit summary, ,
 * Accusations of violating WP:COI:, in edit summary, another edit summary, ,
 * Seeking to disqualify those who dispute his edits:, , , , , , , , ,

Can Merkey be a constructive editor?
Merkey was given another chance to be a constructive editor by User:JzG, who spelled out how to do so at. These were the conditions for him to edit here. The evidence is overwhelming that Merkey does not accept those conditions as an ongoing pattern of behavior. The fact that he has on rare occasions contributed constructively simply shows that he's not ignorant of how to be constructive, and demonstrates that he consciously acts disruptively in order to enforce his POV.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.