Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motion to Dismiss, unclean hands
Motion to dismiss on the grounds SPA's and those engaged in a pattern of stalking and criminal behavior may not bring arbcom cases. User:Pfagerburg is an SPA engaged in criminal stalking and harrassment in violation of Wikipedia Policies, Federal and State law. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, per usual customs and rules, the case will look at all parties and examine evidence from the broad community as needed to find the best decision for the community. FloNight 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Support DanT's comment, except that it should say "alleged sins of the messenger". ArbCom will decide later whether the word "alleged" is to be replaced by "proven" or "disproven."
 * Comment by others:
 * Do the sins of the messenger change the facts being examined in this case? *Dan T.* 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The initiator account is engaged in criminal stalking.  The arbcom, by accepting such a case, are also now participants in the same acts because they have become a participant in the event rather than impartial observers.  Unclean hands is a well established principle in common and equity law, and these principles extend to administrative procedures such as this one.  It affects standing to bring an action and the impartiality of the tribunal.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom, please see this as further proof of legal threats. Let me translate his sentence for you: "drop the arbcom case or you'll go to jail, too."
 * Again, people putting words in my mouth. You asked a question, you got an analysis and response, not a legal threat.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How are we supposed to interpret "he's a criminal stalker, and now ArbCom is, too for keeping this Arb open" ? Pfagerburg 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as this ArbCom proceeding, unclean hands might apply if I had deliberately inserted false materials into those articles, thereby goading you into making your unfounded assertions that are not backed by any citation of federal law. Pfagerburg 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncean hands apply because you are stalking. You follow me from article to article and you came here from SCOX and posted there your intent to stalk.  Pretty open and shut.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide the evidence that I said I would (future tense) stalk you on Wikipedia. I posted statements that I had (past tense) made edits to your biography.  That's a COI, which is a Wikipedia offense, but not a criminal offense in the real world. Pfagerburg 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Recuse Self-identified Gay Arbitrators
A motion is made to recuse any self-identified homosexual arbiters, advocates, or clerks and removal of all their evidence on the grounds this case involves discrimination on the basis of heterosexual orientation and harrassment by members of this group in violation of Wikimedia Policies and Florida State Law. In order to maintain impartiality, all arbiters who are self-identified as homosexuals are requested to abstain from this matter as a point of order and recuse themselves from this matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not needed. FloNight 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The chutzpah of Jeff's motion leaves me speechless. Raul654 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is at best a foolish suggestion, and at worst vile. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No good. I was aware you had an opinion regarding this issue, but it does not follow that your opinion makes others biased. Fred Bauder 05:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have an opinion on this issue, just responding to observed conduct from evidence I have obtained. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Raul654 said it best. This is absolutely uncalled for. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The allegations are true from my perspective. Just because I have strong views about this groups behavior does not mean I should be subjected to targeting and harassment by this group -- which I have been.  I have kept my mouth shut about it -- until now.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12 pages of comments in the chat room making disparaging hate filled comments about heterosexuals and numerous personal attacks of me by this account. It's disgraceful and juvenile banter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The chutzpah of Jeff's motion leaves me speechless. Raul654 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then stop disgracing Wikipedia with your chat room dialouge. I have reams of it from Brandt's site and its embrassing and damages Wikipedia's image.  Peoples private behavior should never become topics of public discussion in a chat room.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is at best a foolish suggestion, and at worst vile. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. what's vile is the materials which can be attributed to Wikipedia from this person in the chat room. Wait a few weeks, things may get more interesting.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This has got to be the most stark raving nutty motion I've ever seen in any ArbCom case here so far. (See also Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles) *Dan T.* 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * JVM you cannot make unfounded statements. Either state what you are talking about, giving a link. Or shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a download link? I have 35 MB of chat room logs.  Where can I send them to for you to review? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tell me where you downloaded them from. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Watch. Daniel gave me a private URL.  You will need to call him to get access.  I cannot give out the URL without his consent.  I have the file and can upload it.  Where would you like it.  I can also post it to wikigadugi.org and you can ftp it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you cannot give me the url then really, you have to let the matter drop. How do you even know the file is accurate? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because is has a verified chain of custody associated with it and meets the rules of evidence as I understand them (legal rules that is). I do not know what rules of evidence wikipedia has regarding these types of materials but the files are verifiable by affidavit.  And yes, I have reviewed the files in detail. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bullshit! Chat rooms are private things, anyone can call themselves by any name they like. They do not disgrace wikipedia because they are private. You're trolling here. and need to stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion in Limine
A motion is made in limine to limit the scope of the reviewed materials and matters to only those items discussed in the complaint. Numerous additional materials have been added by one of the clerks which are outside the scope of the requested relief. Such evidence should and must be barred and held in limine in these proceedings. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. Does not follow our usual custom of looking at all evidence needed to make a sound decision. FloNight 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can look at whatever we want. Wikipedia is not a court of law. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Any editor may comment on or participate in an Arbitration case. I am acting in my capacity as an editor, not a clerk.  As the committee requests that requests for arbitration filed on the main page be brief and to the point, it is frequently the case that additional matters not mentioned in the initial request are later brought into the case. Thatcher131 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to recuse User:jpgordon
A motion is made to recuse jpgordon from these proceedings on the grounds he has prejudiced the proceedings due to undue influence, discussions of the matter off site, and acting as an advocate for the proceedings contrary to the rules of fairness and the required decorum of the tribunal. jpgordon has disgraced the tribunal by acting as an advocate and evidencing a lack of impartiality in the matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, up to the arbitrator to recuse if they feel unable to try the case fairly. I see no reason to advise him to recuse at this time. FloNight 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "discussions of the matter off site"? "Undue influence"? "Acting as an advocate"? Whatever are you talking about? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * You have been making prejudicial comments outside the scope of these proceedings. Does "quack" ring a bell.  Judges do not open their mouths until all of the evidence has been taken in.  It's necessary to ensure impartial proceedings.  Making statements before reviewing evidence prejudices the remaining members.  Undue influence is basically pushing you weight around as Mr. Checkuser, Arbitor, Oversight with weaker non-sysop users to bend them to your will and viewpoints.  In other words, ruling over others through "fear", Wikipedia's current modus operendi.  It's unfair, unproductive, and drives away the really valuable folks.  People are tired of it and I am certainly tired of it here.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Motion to Withdraw
Given that the arbcom is ignoring all rules of fairness, including Wikipedia's own rules and customs, I withdraw from these proceedings. I declare I do not recognize the authority of this body as such and any actions, postings, or other materials will be view as interference with my right to edit pursuant to moneys paid to the foundation based upon this communities public representations. There exists no charter from the Foundation alowing this body to exist. In the event my account is blocked or notices are placed on my pages, I will take any and all actions necessary to discuss this abuse of the site with the Foundation through mail and discussion. As far as I am concerned, this is a troll body and a witch hunt. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Please withdraw the legal threat or you will be blocked per policy. We will take your evidence by email as needed if you are blocked during this case. FloNight 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above motion combined with comments on the talk page are legal threats based on our policy. The point of the policy is to create a collaborative working environment. This comment crosses the line. FloNight 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this statement alone, regardless of whether his legal threats are actually legal threats, should be sufficient to ban Mr. Merkey indefinitely. If he doesn't recognize the authority of this body, that's kinda too bad for him; we don't have to let him edit, regardless of his particular beliefs regarding some "right to edit. If the Foundation has a problem with the existance of ArbCom, the Foundation can deal with it; certainly, they are capable of it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you had already decided this before this proceeding started and browbeating others and using undue influence to make this happen, I think this process is moot.  Baiting me was your decision.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Paraphrased, "give me my way, or Wikipedia gets sued." It's what brought us here, and it's what keeps us here as it continues unabated. Pfagerburg 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Paraphrased, "leave me alone and stop harassing me, I am not here to be the target of harassment". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say anything about legal action? A nasty letter to Wales and the Foundation was what I had in mind.  This is the problem, you people are paranoid, you see legal threats where none exist. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the definition of paranoia includes the word "irrational" (i.e. without basis in reality), and considering the past contents of www.merkeylaw.com accusing Jimbo Wales of a variety of very serious offenses (which I will not dignify with a repetition here), and adding Wikipedia to Merkey v. Perens et al at one point, I think "paranoid" is not the right word. Pfagerburg 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, here we go again. "Anybody who is critical of me is harassing me, you are not allowed to harass me, go away." -Amarkov moo! 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * That's a legal threat and a blockable offence. Please withdraw it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * JVM the phrase "I will take any and all actions necessary to recover moneys from the Foundation" sure looks like a legal threat. Please withdraw it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that better? You people need to define something more succient on what you consider legal threats and what I consider legal threats.  You take business issues and discssion and assume the worst.   Liability discussions are also not legal threats.  I think we have come to the crux of the misunderstanding.  For something to be a legal threat, you must attribute intent to their statements.  Someone has to intend to take legal action, not discuss legal theories or issues of liability.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for doing that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Discuss Scope of Finding of Harassment

 * A remedy of a permanent ban for me appears on the main page, and seven arbitrators have voted for it. Yet, a permanent ban was not even proposed on this page.  The voting went from "Pfagerburg harassed Mr. Merkey: yes" to "Pfagerburg is banned for a year: yes" without discussion of the seriousness of the finding.


 * I proposed a permanent topic ban for myself, and it is certainly appropriate. Such a ban is supported by one other admin (clarify: who is not an arbitrator, but has done an incredible amount of valuable work on this case) instead of a complete ban.  WP:HARASS specifically says "harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning."  There has been no discussion of whether the finding of harassment also rises to the level of "extreme cases" that would warrant a complete ban.


 * I move that the arbitrators consider the scope, specifically whether this was an "extreme case." As can be seen from the evidence page, many other parties have come forward to illustrate that Mr. Merkey is unable to get along with any WP editors for more than a brief time.  I have already admitted my off-wiki activities, and admitted that they merit a topic ban.


 * If the arbitrators feel that this was an "extreme case," then I ask them to discuss the length of the ban, and suggest 3 or 6 months as an alternative. Two behaviours are the main focus of this case, WP:HARASS and WP:NLT.  One behaviour has been admitted, ceased, and a remedy suggested by the guilty party, while the other behaviour has continued unabated - and has even escalated - throughout the case.  Is a ban of the same duration appropriate for two completely different responses to being called out on violations of Wikipedia policy?


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * First off, it doesn't matter that Mr. Merkey was the target of your behavior; it is your behavior, in isolation, that is being addressed by the remedy. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. That's one of the most common things we say in ArbCom decisions. It is highly disruptive to Wikipedia when people bring their grudges here and act them out. ArbCom is weaker than the community as a whole in many ways, and one of them is that we cannot in general impose bans of longer than one year, no matter how heinous the behavior. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pfagerburg, your decision to act in the manner you did has consequences. Unfortunately, there are times when an apology and promises are not enough. The Committee has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the community. At this point in time we believe that your continued participation will be more harmful than beneficial. FloNight 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Pfagerburg 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, jpgordon. My point was mainly that I've admitted to the behaviour which ArbCom has decided constitutes harassment, and committed to stop.  And have done so, check the history of Mr. Merkey's user, user talk, bio, and bio talk pages.  The entire incident has been highly disruptive to Wikipedia, without a doubt.  And for the part that I played in that disruption, I apologize.  But the fact remains that the disruption caused by WP:HARASS has not continued, while the disruption caused by WP:NLT has.  Will the arbitrators consider a shorter block and an indefinite WP:HARASS parole? Pfagerburg 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FloNight, thank you for your feedback. I understand.  I do hope that all of these pages will be kept (not deleted as Mr. Merkey asked) so that when he's back in a year, having resumed his campaign of "anyone who disagrees with me is harassing me/stalking me/Al Petrofsky's secret agent/bought off by Mormons/violating federal law/etc." then the community can act swiftly and decisively.  As for me, I'll be back in a year, too, but you won't see me back here with WP:HARASS.  Thank you to all the arbitrators for handling the matter. Pfagerburg 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No legal threats
1) Threats of legal action intended to intimidate other editors are incompatible with the wiki method of collaborative editing. Editors with concerns about article content may attempt to address their concerns through the normal editing process, or they may contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly about legal remedies, but they may not do both.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name
2) There is no material difference between a direct legal threat (e.g., I will sue you if you don't change the article to my liking) and an indirect legal threat (e.g., someone else may sue you if you don't allow me to change this article content to my liking); both are violations of the No legal threats policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Exactly correct. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Stuck in a couple of "e.g." to make it clearer that these are examples, not actual quotes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Discussion of liability issues with affect all editors involved in mediation on a controversial topic is not a legal threat. It may be a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it is not a legal threat. You are also citing me making a statment I did not make.  Please show me where the statements someone else may sue you if you don't allow me to change this article content to my liking or I will sue you if you don't change the article to my liking appears in any of my edits.  Evidence is just that, not fabricated statements based upon you or anyone else's perceptions.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to strike "Rose by any other name" section. Section contains fabricated statements not present in the editing record. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those statements are paraphrases of understood intent, and are not presented as direct quotes. The writer should probably have clarified that. Pfagerburg 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The statements which I referenced in the AN/I and the ArbReq would not be legal threats (at least not according to my understanding) if Mr. Merkey cites the law or laws that he has claimed (see evidence page) to already know and have well-briefed. In that case, it would be as simple as Newyorkbrad's comment below about copyvio - telling someone to remove copyvio before WP gets sued is not a legal threat, it's a statement of fact.  What I (and others) have considered to be Mr. Merkey's legal threats could actually be statements of fact, if he would only provide citations of the relevant federal law.  Which he has not, to my knowledge, done, despite being asked several times. Pfagerburg 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sound in substance; wording may need to be narrowed slightly (e.g., "this material is a copyvio so we'd better delete it before the owner takes action" can be a legitimate comment). Newyorkbrad 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Principles are not evidence. They are principles that guide the decisions of the Arbitrators.  Read a few past cases.  There is nothing to strike. Thatcher131 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some valid concerns on both sides here. In discussion of any issue, any concerns that some particular content might possibly be illegal or infringe on somebody's rights would be on-topic and wouldn't constitute "threats" if the person raising them was not somebody with standing to actually take legal action on the issue (and wasn't threatening to inform outside authorities or rights-holders to try to get something started of that sort).  However, such things could also be done as veiled legal threats to intimidate opponents in an edit dispute.  Thus, careful context-dependent examination is necessary on a case by case basis, rather than flat "one-size-fits-all" rules. *Dan T.* 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
3) Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons. Editors whose sole purpose is to oppose another editor or to bring outside drama to Wikipedia to negatively affect another editor may be banned from editing articles related to the harassed editor, or in extreme cases, from Wikpiedia itself.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If the ArbCom finds that I have harassed Mr. Merkey, then the appropriate remedy is (IMHO) already given above, "may be banned from editing articles related to the harassed editor, or in extreme cases, from Wikpiedia itself." I submit that this is not an extreme case, and therefore the one-year ban on the Proposed Decision page is not appropriate.
 * See my admissions on the evidence page that I trolled Mr. Merkey off-wiki, and the COI it created, but I do not feel that objecting to his legal threats, and taking the steps necessary to gather the evidence (including asking him twice to clarify), constitute harassment. I've already noted that there is at least one reason (WP:COI) to ban me from editing articles relating to Mr. Merkey, and no matter the decision on the harassment issue, the COI won't change. Pfagerburg 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts
4) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Editors should not import drama and conflict from other sites or fora.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Proposed decision, in which the arbitrators are about to endorse this same principle. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy not Allowed - Mediation Evidence is Banned
6) The previous discussions of Native American Liability were within the framework of Mediation, which was successfully concluded by users involved. Given that mediation was successful, previous evidence is banned in these proceedings on this matter since settlement discussions are typically privileged and undiscoverable between the parties.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Of course double jeopardy is allowed. This is not a court of law, and besides, the sole "jeopardy" here is the privilege to edit Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not needed. FloNight 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The previous discussions of Native American Liability were within the framework of Mediation, which was successfully concluded by users involved. Given that mediation was successful, previous evidence is banned in these proceedings on this matter since settlement discussions are typically privileged and undiscoverable between the parties.  Had these discussions been of such a serious nature to be considered by the arbcom, it should have been raised then.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Merkey, I do not understand your comment, and am unsure if you are referring to the AN/I that immediately preceded this ArbCom, or an earlier instance of mediation. For the benefit of involved parties and the arbitrators, can you please specify when mediation occurred and with whom? Pfagerburg 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Was the mediation formal (sponsored by WP:MEDCOM) or informal? Formal mediation may not be used in ArbCom cases but there is no rule about informal mediation or the mediation cabal being used in an arbitration case.  In any event, I am not especially interested in the subject of the mediation, but rather the fact that Kebron jumped into the dispute then jumped out, suggesting he was not really interested in the content of the dispute but just wanted to wind you up. Thatcher131 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Formal. The materials and the purported legal threats (which were probably more accurately classified as uncivil comments during mediation) are banned as evidence here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean something that happened off-wiki at the Office level, and not actually any of the forms of Mediation. Thatcher131 07:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the part where I contend no one reads anything around here. The mediation was formal.  You will find it here -> Talk:Cherokee. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, the mediation was informal, as such things go on Wikipedia. ("Since this is not a formal Mediation process, but an attempt to solve the differences that have hindered the search for a solution.")  The only type of mediation where the parties' statements and participation can not be used in Arbitration is mediation sponsored by MEDCOM and initiated by a formal Request for mediation.  This is due to the fact that MEDCOM, like ArbCom, was formally established by Jimbo as part of the dispute resolution process.  In any case, since the mediation seems to have turned out rather well, I'd say it works in your favor anyway. Thatcher131 10:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, the mediation on Talk:Cherokee by Phaedriel (to which she deserves massive compliments for reaching a successful conclusion) was not sponsored nor in any way related to the Jimmy Wales-established Mediation Committee, and is therefore not afforded the right of privilege under the Mediation policy.  Daniel  08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation didn't begin until June 2. I tend to agree that the discussion at mediation not be considered evidence against Jeffrey.  Indeed, whether through the skill of the mediator or the minimization of trolling during that time, the behavior of Jeffrey in our dispute at the end shows that he is perfectly able to argue without hurting feelings or overstepping boundaries.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 13:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation rights preemptive
7) Previous evidence of banning related to a previous Federal Lawsuit is banned pursuant to a settlement agreement between this party and Brad Patrick of the Wikimedia Foundation related to dismissed legal claims. Evidence of previous banning is barred pursuant to WP:OFFICE.  The Wikimedia Foundation made binding promises to correct the problems caused by my lack of understanding of the project at the time and the legal dispute which was dismissed.  Any such evidence is banned pursuant to these agreements.  The Foundation is a "person" and as such has obligations to honor its promises.  This project is obliged to honor them as well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If the Foundation wishes to make this point, they may. This is not a court of law. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not needed. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Previous evidence of banning related to a previous Federal Lawsuit is banned pursuant to a settlement agreement between this party and Brad Patrick of the Wikimedia Foundation related to dismissed legal claims. Evidence of previous banning is barred pursuant to WP:OFFICE.  The Wikimedia Foundation made binding promises to correct the problems caused by my lack of understanding of the project at the time and the legal dispute which was dismissed.  Any such evidence is banned pursuant to these agreements.  The Foundation is a "person" and as such has obligations to honor its promises.  This project is obliged to honor them as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Well, this is not a principle for consideration in the final decision, but rather a point of order, which should either be brought up on the talk page or in motions and requests by the parties (i.e. a request to redact certain evidence). The problem is that if we are only going to consider the account User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey then we can't discuss comments made by User:Kebron on various deleted talk pages, that would otherwise be evidence that his main purpose editing is to follow you around and wind you up. You may wish to e-mail your concern about this specific question to a member of ArbCom or Jimbo; they may wish to discuss it on their closed e-mail list. Thatcher131 04:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Irregardless, this agreement is binding on the parties and the project. Since the Foundation is an alter-ego of the Community due to elections of the Board of Trustees, there is no longer any distinction between the two.  I guess the basic premise here is how good is the word of the Foundation and the Community.  Sufficient postings exist on SCOX to substanciate these claims. Evidence related to previous agreements is banned related to me but Kebron has no such covenants with the foundation, so the deleted pages are fair game where he is concerned.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear what you think can and can not be discussed, since you don't seem to mean any form of Wikipedia mediation but rather some discussion that ocurred off-wiki. This discussion should be moved to the talk page or you should pursue this privately to request clarification. Thatcher131 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Decorum of the Tribunal
8) The arbitration committee does not accept cases filed by confirmed sockpuppets or single purpose accounts. This is particularly true when the initiator has been confirmed to have engaged in stalking and harrassment of Wikipedia editors, on-going vandalism, or other long term site abuse, or criminal activity which violates the law, such as online stalking and harassment.   The Decorum of the Tribunal and its impartiality must be maintained to the highest possible standard, and this precludes the committe from becoming participants in the event itself.  As such, any cases filed by SPA's will be summarily dismissed with prejudice as abuse of process of the site policies and procedures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not needed. FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this would be for the best, but even if it's decided that he is a troll, is there really a point in closing this just so someone else can file a new case?
 * Comment by others:
 * Correct in principle; the clerks and arbitrators routinely remove requests that are clearly trolling or filed by banned users. That is not obviously the case here, as the relevant issue is not whether Pfagerburg has narrow editing interests (I did too in my first few weeks) but whether Pfagerburg is an abusive account, which has not been determined.  You're asking the committee to reject the case based on a decision that has not been reached. Thatcher131 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He edits on SCOX and has posted personal attacks, legal threats, libel, and other content then came here to edit my bio and harrass me with the same conduct. "quack".  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Drop some evidence on the evidence page, then.  I'll look it over and add to or modify my proposals accordingly.  (This is of course a very preliminary stage in the process.) Thatcher131 06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law
9) Wikipedia, and by extension the Arbitration Committee, is not a court of law. The Arbitration Committee is not bound by legal principles or rules of order, nor are they bound by the precedent of principles or findings of fact established in prior arbitration cases.  The Arbitration Committee works with Wikipedia's common practices, policies, and guidelines.  The Committee is in place to resolve disputes which occur within Wikipedia and is not empowered to resolves legal disputes between editors, or with outside interests; real or potential.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True... but not needed. (Change my mind and support) FloNight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, given the overly legalistic nature of this case so far. I may be trying to cram two different thoughts/principles into one. --InkSplotch 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also obvious to nearly everyone... Thatcher131 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been an awful lot of Wikilawyering going on here. *Dan T.* 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
1) 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 falsely (in his view) claim membership in a Native American tribe.        See also Template:NativeWarn.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We're not bound by laws of evidence. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Evidence banned by previous agreements pursuant to WP:OFFICE. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also noticed you are not bound by the rules of fairness and equity either it appears. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can do this without any reference to edits made by your former accounts. Thatcher131 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
1.1) has argued that the Wikimedia Foundation could be civilly or criminally liable for allowing certain groups to falsely (in his view) claim membership in a Native American tribe.        See also Template:NativeWarn.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Evidence banned under the doctrine of double jeopardy. Mediation dicussions may not be used in arbcom proceedings. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous Banning Ordered by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees pursuant to WP:OFFICE
Despite the inacurate information on the previous banning page I was banned by the Wikimedia Community 2 1/2 years ago, I was informed by Brad Patrick the day after I was banned the action was ordered by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation after failing to respond to an email from the Board. Sadly, the entire affair was related to Brad's law firm not using a qualified domain name and my email spam filter rejecting the mail. When they learned I did not get the email due to this some days later, there was a lot of remorse expressed to me by the foundation over the actions they had taken. Given that, I have never been under a community ban and the posting to the banned users page was materially false and misleading. I was informed this was due to my involvement in an off site legal dispute that the foundation did not wish to become involved in at the time. Given these facts, all evidence of previous issues with these incidents related to my biography are covered under the agreements made with Brad Patrick. Please leave the past where it belongs. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not needed, in this format anyway. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive editing by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
1.2) Merkey edit warred at   , in the process characterizing opposing editors as trolls and vandals.  See also Merkey's creation of Category:Massacres by Mormons and the discussion at CfD.  Merkey created the biography  as an attack article on a Native American activist and Wikipedia editor  with whom he was involved in an editing dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Appears correct. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The article was already in a state of disruption when I unkowingly arrived there. Over a dozen editors were engaged in edit warring along with sockpuppet IP addresses which placed edit summaries into the article accusing any editor who touched the article of being and I quote "an anti-mormon POV pusher".  My presence, although heated, calmed down the debates and allowed solid progress on that article.  This statement is patently false. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Legalist claims of a "Right to edit"
1.3) Merkey has asserted in his essay WP:Right to edit (deleted revision ) and at Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 that since the Foundation solicits donations on the premise that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that this right can not be taken away without endangering the Foundations' status. "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."
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not needed, in this format anyway FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * This is an experimental legal theory. The Wikipedia community is obligated to honor its promises.  I mean, how important is Wikipedia's word to the general public and its editors.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the "right to edit" premise, I would like to quote something that is often said to young people getting their driver's license. The judge often says (at least in my case) that getting this license is not a right, it is a privilege. And like all privileges, it can be taken away if you abuse it. I would liken this to editing on Wikipedia to this. Editing on Wikipedia is not a "right" per say, but actually a privilege. If you abuse that privilege (via legal threats, vandalism, incivility), this privilege can be revoked, and in fact is revoked on a daily basis to many editors. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Thatcher131 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
1.4) Merkey has edit-warred over the issue of Native American identity at and.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Appears correct. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Evidence exists these were single purpose accounts. reverting edits of SPA's is not edit warring since edits made by such accounts are not good faith efforts to improve the project.  As such, they were reverting vandalism. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
 * SPA accounts confirmed along with sockpuppetry of Smmurphy and StormShadows00. Since these are not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, reverting of edits is removal of vandalism. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the request for checkuser that shows sockpuppetry of Smmurphy and StormShadows00? That's valuable evidence. Pfagerburg 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey fails to assume good faith
1.5) Merkey routinely defines editors who oppose him as trolls, meat puppets,     , even during this arbitration proceeding.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * You are no required to assume good faith when presented with compelling evidence of bad faith. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. To him, "compelling evidence of bad faith" means pretty much any criticism. -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only full members of the Cabal Inner Circle are allowed to do this. Merkey is only an Associate Member, and has yet to undergo formal induction and be taught the secret handshake.  Thus, he is not yet qualified to label all his critics as "trolls" and "sockpuppets" and "SPAs" and "meatpuppets", and make it stick. *Dan T.* 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
1.6) A Request for comment was filed stating "JVM is very passionate about Native American issues. However, this passion has blinded him to the obligation to avoid edit warring, not create articles designed to attack living persons, maintain a neutral point of view, maintain an encyclopedic tone, and above all, to assume good faith of other contributors." The general consensus was that there are single purpose accounts at Wikipedia trolling and harassing Merkey, but that does not excuse his behavior, see Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. The edit warring at Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and related legal threats against the Foundation have ocurred since the close of the RfC.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. FloNight 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Evidence banned under Double Jeopardy Doctrine. RFC was dismissed as abuse of process since neither party attempted mediation and refused to resolve the dispute.  The evidence is overwhleming and well documented.  RFC was little more than trolling from these same SPAs.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thatcher131. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Thatcher131 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a double-jeopardy rule. Not only does ArbCom benefit from reviewing Requests for comment, they frequently require them as a prerequisite to accepting a case.  I believe the Arbitration Committee will find the comments on the RfC useful, and quite a few are favorable to you. Thatcher131 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Threat of violence
1.7) Typical attack and "just kidding" behavior"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Harassment of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
3) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is a controversial figure in the Linux/Freeware community and has been harassed on Wikipedia by a number of single-purpose accounts. For example,, , ,  and , among others. (See their block logs.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Indeed important to note that there are some people harassing him. -Amarkov moo! 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Important to note this. Thatcher131 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey by ^demon
3.1) Mr. Merkey has been harrassed by self-identified gay members of Wikipedia based upon his views of homosexuality. This abuse has involved blocking, stalking, and other forms of harassment which violate the Wikimedia Foundations non-Discrimination policies regarding heterosexual orientation.  Users ^demon, Zscout70, and other users in this category has repeatedly posted harassing content to their user pages and user ^demon has been collaborating off-site with an individual who is currently under a Federal Court order in violation of Wikipedia Policies, and United States Laws.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * So apparently I have an anti-heterosexual agenda I don't know about? I'd love some diffs to support that. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to know who this person under Federal Court order is, so I can stop talking to them in real life and stop collaborating with them. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12 pages of comments in the chat room making disparaging hate filled comments about heterosexuals and numerous personal attacks of me by this account. It's disgraceful and juvenile banter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * First of all, this was proposed by Merkey who, perhaps inadvertently, signed my name. That's a no-no.  Second, some actual evidence would be nice to allow the Arbitrators to evaluate this proposed finding of fact.  Go to the Evidence page for this case and lay out your diffs and web links. Thatcher131 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I cut and pasted from the section above and failed to notice the comments.  Chat room logs cannot be used here, however, there is sufficient evidence in the hive mind pages on Brandt's site (which I have a mirror) to substanciate this claim, not only with this user but dozens of others, including Raul the senior editor who also has been making such statements.    He's added.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Clerk note: New parties may not be added to the case once it is opened except with the approval of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently baseless accusations unsupported by any evidence. Merkey's use of the arbitration as a smear campaign against other users is totally unacceptable. WjBscribe 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12 pages of comments in the chat room making disparaging hate filled comments about heterosexuals and numerous personal attacks of me by this account. It's disgraceful and juvenile banter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you say it doesn't make it true... WjBscribe 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, Merkey here is reminding me very much of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who waved around a paper that supposedly listed a bunch of communists in high positions, but never actually showed it to anybody. *Dan T.* 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, Merkey here is reminding me very much of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who waved around a paper that supposedly listed a bunch of communists in high positions, but never actually showed it to anybody. *Dan T.* 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg
4) 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 Mr. Merkey in a bad light. (Suggesting a lawsuit makes outrageous claims     ; SCO lawsuit, based on documents hosted at a site critical of Mr. Merkey   ).

In particular, these recent edits   shows that although Pfagerburg's editing interests have broadened somewhat, he maintains a strong interest in Mr. Merkey's legal troubles and has not assimilated Wikipedia policies on No original research and Biographies of living persons.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per a remedy I proposed below, there will be no further issues with Mr. Merkey's bio on my account. And I think staying away from other BLP's would be a good idea.  WP:NOR is still a tricky issue, when combined with WP:PSTS, but I'm getting the hang of it, see . Pfagerburg 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg and the dispute over Native American Identity
5) Pfagerburg made a 1300+ word complaint at the Admins' Noticeboard regarding Merkey's use of legal threats in a content dispute.  Pfagerburg was not previously involved in the dispute, except for two comments here , 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The length of the AN/I complaint (1300+ words) has been mentioned in two separate areas, as though that were an offense in and of itself. Most of those 1300 words were quotes from the diffs I linked to.  In retrospect, I should have only linked the diffs and not quoted them as well. Pfagerburg 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By this standard, I'm equally as guilty as he is. I don't believe that I'm harassing Merkey, so by extention, I don't believe this by itself is evidence of harassment. -Amarkov moo! 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But you don't also have a history of poking Merkey with a stick on his bio. Thatcher131 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. And that's why a permanent topic ban is warranted.  The guideline itself says that a complete ban is for "extreme" cases.  I don't think the evidence supports a finding of "extreme."  Did I monitor his every edit?  Did I revert articles he edited?  Did I nominate some of his hatchet-job articles (how about the now-deleted "Mormon Men in Black"?) for deletion?  Did I repeatedly modify his user talk page?  No to all.  I fail to see how pointing out another editor's repeated violations of a key policy (WP:NLT) constitutes an "extreme" level of harassment that warrants a total ban. Pfagerburg 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron
6) As noted here, is a single-purpose account that generally acts to oppose Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. For example, on May 15, Kebron and JVM edit warred over the issue of tribal identity   at Talk:Cherokee.  The dispute seems to have been resolved  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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

Once again, I began editing and AFTER being accused of being a troll that is when I decided find out who Mr Merkey was and why I was being attacked. At any rate, after all this time, one admin finaly just recently stated that I should stop editing any article by Mr Merkey AFTER I asked for clarification on this issue. I have only appeared after Mr Merkey mentions my account stating that I am a troll. At any rate, I was disciplined recently with my account locked for a few days. I now make promise to never ever to edit any article by Mr Merkey as this was the only request ever made to me from an admin. --Kebron 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kebron's very first edit was to the deleted User talk:Gadugi, "The TRUTH is there was NO identity theft as you claim Mr Merkey. YOU proved on the Yahoo board that it was you posting by posting on the merkeylaw.com site AND the Yahoo Board. Please do not try any lying and false statements yourself Sir." You were obviously well aware of who he was and were also aware of, if not a participant in, the SCOX messageboard dispute. You may not remember these early comments because they do not show up in your contributions (since they are deleted) but any admin or Arbitrator can see and verify them. Thatcher131 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron's first edits
7) Kebron's first edits were to User talk:Gadugi, referencing a dispute on the Yahoo SCOX message board. (Admin only links )


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Thatcher131 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Kebron
8) Kebron began by harassing User:Gadugi over a dispute on the SCOX messageboard; he has continued to monitor the edits of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, making complaints and particpating in discussions at the Admins' noticeboard in which he was not a stakeholder; 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 and wikistalking of Merkey.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Note that several commentors in the various AN/I threads since Merkey's return have also made this observation.  Kebron's first edits were a continuation of an argument from the SCOX noticeboard and nearly every edit since then is either related to Merkey or is a case of Kebron jumping into a dispute between Merkey and someone else. Thatcher131 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No misconduct by ^demon
9) No evidence of misconduct on the part of ^demon has been presented. This user's connection to the case is minimal and he remains an administrator in good standing.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True but not needed. Unfortunately RFRArb cases often include misguided accusations. :-( FloNight 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ridiculous that Merkey should be allowed to smear someone's character in the manner he has done. WjBscribe 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Most we can do. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Given that the evidence to substantiate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if the evidence were restricted to your editing post-May 2, 2007, there is plenty of evidence of poor behavior that could serve as the basis for a remedy of some kind. Thatcher131 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the edits of Waya sahoni and Gadugi (or at least as many as I could skim through before my eyes glazed over) including the deleted talk page edits and I don't see anything that would have triggered a block from me at the time. Just based on JVM's editing behavior since his return, and taking the existence of SCOX trolls (for lack of a better word) into account as a mitigating factor, I don't believe outright banning is appropriate at this time. Thatcher131 07:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where in wikipedia policy you have learned that any previous dispute resolution cannot be used as evidence in an Arbitration. True, proceedings by the MEDCOM can't be used as evidence, but everything else can be. Martinp23 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey topic banned
2) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing articles (including talk pages, Wikiprojects, and other project pages) related to Native Americans, broadly interpreted.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * When he gets back from his one year ban, yes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is his main area of disruption, but also his major interest.  Might amount to a de facto banning anyway. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "related to Native Americans" might be too broad. Perhaps "related to Native American politics" or something more like that? Because while the "politics" of the tribes (particularily Cherokee identity, and similar areas) seem to be a hotbed for causing the disputes here, I've seen Merkey make some valuable contributions to other areas relating to traditional Native American herbs and medicines. I believe that those areas are non-contentious, and could benefit from Merkey's input. --Maelwys 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on probation
3) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from any article and its talk page, for a suitable period of time, for disruptive edits, including making legal threats. Bans may be enforced by blocks of up to one week per violation. Bans and blocks to be recorded at Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, on the theory that Wikipedia gives everyone 14 "second" chances. He has important knowledge but appears to be unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with community norms of behavior. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plenty of evidence since your return on May 2. First choice now. Thatcher131 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned for three years
4) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing Wikipedia for three years.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The Committee has issued bans of (potentially) longer length than one year in various special circumstances; see, e.g. the Henrygb case. Kirill 03:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think one year vs. three makes a big difference. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. As described on Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Evidence, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was previously blocked for over one and a half years for legal threats, returning to editing only in May of this year.  As a one and a half year block has apparently proven ineffective in preventing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey from making additional legal threats, a stronger response is needed to the more recent legal threats described on Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. John254 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom only considers one-year bans to be within its jurisdiction. Thatcher131 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron banned indefinitely
5) Kebron is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Community will have to do this. One year max from us. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. As described on Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Evidence, Kebron is a disruptive single purpose account used almost exclusively to make edits related to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. John254 02:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At present, Kebron is not a party to the case. If arbitrators wish to consider his conduct or potential remedies against him, I will notify him. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still working on the evidence, by the way. Brad, please notify him. Thatcher131 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notified of the case and invited to submit evidence or proposals. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg topic banned
6) Pfagerburg is permanently prohibited from editing articles about Mr. Merkey. This includes Jeff V. Merkey and Talk:Jeff V. Merkey.  And according to an earlier block, also User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and User_talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.  This ban is to be interpreted broadly, i.e. no adding "the subject of this article was sued by Jeff Merkey for etc. etc." to, e.g. Bruce Perens.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I'm surprised no-one has suggested this yet, because it seems perfectly fair. Pfagerburg 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfagerburg is permanently banned for stalking and harassment as an SPA and indefinitely blocked. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It was suggested by you three hours after the case was opened. That's pretty fast, actually. Someone would have gotten to it soon. Changed section header (modified "banned" to "topic banned") for clarity. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it would have been in the first batch of proposals by Thatcher131. That's why I expressed surprise. Pfagerburg 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfagerburg, some cases sit for a month with no movement. This one caught my interest for some reason so I have been looking into evidence and possible remedies.  I think a topical ban for you makes sense, particularly if you recognize a conflict of interest. Thatcher131 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge a conflict of interest. Prior to filing the ArbReq, I was certain that a topic ban would be issued, and to the extent that my consent or agreement matters, ArbCom has it without protest. Pfagerburg 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned indefinitely
7) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing Wikipedia indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is the only remedy that can truly stop the madness. Even in this arbitration proceeding, Mr. Merkey has smeared and otherwise called into question the integrity of the arbitrators and other parties.  Past behaviour indicates that he will not assume good faith of anyone who is even remotely critical of him, and therefore, can only cause disruption on Wikipedia. Pfagerburg 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of this user's determination to smear the ArbCom, admins, and Wikipedia in general, any sanction applied to me should be substantially less than any sanction applied to Mr. Merkey. No-one can criticize his actions without being smeared, attacked, and threatened with litigation.


 * I have admitted to my off-wiki behaviour (but remember, "we don't punish for off-wiki behaviour", need to find that admin's diff!) and how the resulting COI warrants a permanent topic ban. That's in line with the harassment policy, too.  Still, if ArbCom decides that it warrants a total ban, one year is too harsh for me getting in the way of Mr. Merkey's legal threats.


 * I hope that it is exceedingly clear at this point who is the much larger problem. I'm not 100% innocent (see aforementioned COI), but I hope that the arbitrators can see that no matter who would have begun this arbitration, the end result - Mr. Merkey's legal threats escalating - would have been the same. Pfagerburg 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is per evidence supplied by Thatcher131, John254, and especially Al_Petrofsky. Merkey has routinely, since day one, been a problem for the community. A simple look at his his block log will tell you that. We don't give this much leeway to normal trolls who continuously make legal threats and do not act civilly with other edits, why should he be given an nth chance? ^ demon [omg plz] 13:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Sysoped
8) Merkey is sysoped to deal with these trolls and stalkers directly. This case presents extraordinary circumstances and the reasons for doing so are compelling. Mr. Merkey may not use administrative privileges in any actions other than to block troll accounts or SPA's pursuing him.  All blocks are subject to review and reversal by the arbcom.  Reversal of any of his blocks by any project admin who feels they may have been unwarranted will not be considered wheel warring, but are subject to review by the arbcom.  His adminiship powers will be revoked upon any instance of misuse outside of this narrow limited use.  His admin powers will expire 1 year from this ruling.  There is overwhelming evidence Mr. Merkey has been subjected to a level of harassment on Wikipedia unparalleled in its history by an outside community.  Wikipedia has no tolerance for such activities as they evidence massive disruption of our project and continue to do so, and harassment of our valuable contributors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbcom is simply not empowered to do this, even if we wanted to, which we don't. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thatcher131. This has to be one of the most unlikely proposals I've ever heard. Not a shred of evidence supports it, even if it were within ArbCom's mandate to give out adminship. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Not a chance. Even if you succeeded in a Request for Adminship, the blocking policy forbids admins from dealing with users when there is a strong conflict of interest.  Block a couple of these guys on your own and you would be de-adminned in a heartbeat. Thatcher131 06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:^demon De-sysoped and banned for one year
User ^demon is de-sysopped and banned from Wikipedia for one year for harrassment of Mr. Merkey and for violating the Wikimedia Foundations non-discrimination policy and Florida Accomodation laws by harrassing Mr. Merkey due to his heterosexual orientation and his personal views on homosexuality. This user has also acted in concert off site with another individual, Al Petrofsky, in order to violate an order of the Federal Court in Utah.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Required. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the funniest arbitration case ever. This proposal is absurd enough already, but demanding it? -Amarkov moo! 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Without a doubt the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen in an arbitration case. These accusations are utterly unsupported by any evidence. ^demon is an outstanding member of the community: one of our hardest working admins dealing with image backlogs and a former chair of the Mediation Committee. This proposal is nothing more than a personal attack, alleging serious illegal conduct. WjBscribe 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence for the charges here? I've looked at pages and pages of that guy's edit history and failed to find the slightest hint of this supposed "harassment" and "discrimination". *Dan T.* 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My agreement goes with WJB - ^demon is an outstanding member of the community (a former chair of the Mediation Committee, and an Administrator with a recently passed and highly successful RfA), and these claims towards him are nothing short of a direct attempt to discredit him ~ Anthøny  21:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actions between parties
10) Actions between the parties is banned, including administrative actions. This does not not include grammar/spelling fixes and the like and reverting simple vandalism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not need since we banned the problematic users. ^demon, another party to the case, was acting properly so this sanction is not appropriate. FloNight 11:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, keep the parties away from each other (similar to the proposal in the COFS case, but more strict here). Yes, I know that bans look to be coming for three of the users, but if even one survives the ban, this could take effect.  Kwsn (Ni!) 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, ^demon is still officially a party and I see no reason why he should be subjected to such a remedy. Nor do I think there's any need to ban Pfagerburg from any interaction with Kebron and vice versa, since that, in itself, isn't the subject of any dispute. Consider naming the parties and specifying what these 'actions' consist of. --Aim Here
 * I agree with the other commenters that there doesn't seem to be a need for this given the apparent outcome of the case, and given that no administrator has been shown to have done anything arguably wrong that should even be the subject of discussion. Newyorkbrad 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Noticeboard complaints involving Merkey

 * 15 May, edit war at Cherokee. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive244. User:Duk notes that Merkey is being trolled on the SCOX message board and that "Kebron, from your edit history it's starting to look like you're only interested in following Jeff around and goading him".


 * 19 May Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive248


 * 10 July, Merkey complains about Kebron Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269


 * 14 July, complaint by about edit war at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy.  Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive271 It is noted that Stormshadows00 is a single-purpose account and that Merkey is still being targeted by the SCOX message board.  Kebron jumps in to contribute even though he has never edited the page or talk page in question.


 * 17 July, Pfagerburg's magnum opus regarding the Native identification issue (with which he was uninvolved, except to file the complaint). Outcome: Merkey, Pfagerburg and Kebron blocked for 5 days, then this case was filed.


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive89 note David Gerard, Checkuser is here to fail to scatter magic pixie dust over the situation! Poindexter, people look askance at you because you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian who's magically reappeared out of nowhere in a controversy, so people are obviously going to wonder who the hell you are. CatchFork is trolling us, well done. Everyone else, please STOP trying to poke Jeff with sticks. You will not advance discussion in any way


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I object to the use of the term "magnum opus" to describe my AN/I complaint. All other entries are described in factual or neutral terms.  "Magnum opus" has a POV-ish slant to it.  Call it "detailed," "long," or "1300+ word" complaint, though I still have not had it explained to me why being 1300+ words in length is a notable fact. Pfagerburg 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Notes. Thatcher131 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not readily apparent from the record, but I am the Poindexter referred to in David Gerard's comment at the bottom of the "Noticeboard Complaints" category. It's fairly difficult to follow what's going on, as an editor who then believed I was an SPA deleted my comments, so you find Mr. Gerard replying to statements which are no longer there. I feel sure that nothing related to me is going to have any impact on these proceedings one way or the other, but wanted to point out the above, lest arbitrators' time be wasted trying to figure out what was going on in that exchange. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: