Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * Blnguyen
 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Mackensen
 * Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * Paul August
 * Raul654
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:
 * Flcelloguy
 * Neutrality (Ben)

Clarify ban if imposed
Since Kirill has put up some proposed decisions, and one of those involves banning me for a year, I have a question. If the ban passes, does it take effect immediately after the majority vote, or do I get a short amount of time to "put my affairs in order," so to speak? That would include putting up a "long wikibreak" message on my user and/or user talk pages, plus a link to what I hope will become my good work on Wikibooks.

Which leads me to the next question. Would such a ban affect my participation in other WMF projects, particularly Wikibooks? While going over my watchlist, I saw a reference to a broken link in the Atmel AVR article. And I fixed it, followed it, and found a section of a wikibook that needs improvement, per the tags. So even if I am banned from Wikipedia, will I still be able to help improve Wikibooks, or would the ban cover all WMF projects? Thanks. Pfagerburg 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After a majority of Arbitrators vote, someone will make a motion to close (at the bottom of the page). 24 hours is usually the minimum span between making the motion and a clerk closing the case.  (Sometimes cases take a long time to close, as Arbitrators may disagree on remedies and offer counter-proposals for consideration.)  When the clerk closes the case any blocks called for would be put in place.  Action on the english language Wikipedia does not affect a user's participation in other projects, or even other language Wikipedias. Thatcher131 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As I continue to monitor the case, I will pay special attention to the motion to close.  If it looks like I will be banned from English Wikipedia, I'll clean up preemptively at that point. Pfagerburg 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thatcher131 correctly describes the procedure, and as the clerk for this case I will follow it, including allowing the 24 hours between the motion to close first being proposed and implementing the closure and any blocks (unless otherwise directed by the arbitrators). A caveat is that any editors who engage in misconduct during that interval may be blocked sooner, but I hope that would not become an issue. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa
I was shocked to see this disappear from the "Evidence" heading already and then jump into voting. hbdragon88 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to keep contributing to the evidence and workshop pages. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Account Cleanup
I have cleaned up the talk page and user page for this account, and my affairs are in order and am ready when the executioner comes. Please do not place any notices in this account or pages, I would prefer the history and talk pages be deleted if possible. Banning notices will not be taken kindly and are unnecessary in my case. I will simply go and not return. Also, please desysop my other accounts on the Native American Wikipedia's. Given the situation, I think it would be best if I avoid all Wikimedia sites since there may be contention over the placement of any banning notices associated with my name. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your waiver of notice of the final decision is noted. With regard to administrator status on other Wikimedia projects, your request should be placed on the request for permissions page on Meta wiki for action by a steward. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have sufficient interest to visit the pages. At any rate, I am certain they will be removed soon without requesting it directly.   Thanks.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for Merkey's ban is too narrow
I would like to suggest to the Arbitrators that the rationale for Merkey's ban is too narrow. By only including the legal threats, I believe you leave open the possibility that he can argue for his return if he changes his language (either cosmetically, or substantially) or negotiates some further agreement with the Foundation (as he claims to have done once before). You have not dealt with issues of disruptive editing (edit warring and article ownership regarding claims of NA status, disruptive anti-Mormon edits, and BLP problems). Thatcher131 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all moot since I will not be returning to enwiki while the status quo remains the way it is today.  There will be significant events which will occur between now and when this may happen given the changes the foundation is undergoing at present.  I do not anticipate the arbcom will still exist a year from now based on this, so I think its a moot point.   Despite this you can place whatever you want into the final decision since it will in all probability be reversed in any event, and I do not plan to return here until some things change for the better in any event. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please note that User:Alanyst has commented that he had also prepared an ArbReq concerning Mr. Merkey. I hope that Alanyst will be able to add his evidence to the case soon.  Which will, I'm sure, be proof positive that Alanyst is also a criminal stalker and is violating WP:HARASS.
 * It's more than just the legal threats, it's the sum of the behaviours that justifies the ban. Making legal threats and then backpedaling when challenged is really just one aspect of the overall problem. Pfagerburg 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but removing a legal threat when asked to do so is not "backpedaling" it is, in fact a good thing to do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing the threat is a very wise thing. By backpedaling, I meant the pretense that it was never intended as such.
 * Proper:
 * I'll take any necessary action!
 * That was a legal threat, please withdraw it.
 * I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that. I withdraw it.
 * Improper:
 * I'll take any necessary action!
 * That was a legal threat, please withdraw it.
 * You people are so paranoid. I just meant I would send a nasty letter.
 * Call it the "just kidding" excuse. If you get called on the threat, "just kidding."  And if not, then you got your way by making the threat. Pfagerburg 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre position being taken by ArbCom
By imposing one-year bans on Merkey and on the two accounts that were complaining about him, the ArbCom seems to be making the statement that those two people were correct in their complaints about Merkey, but that they're still guilty of harrassment for making them. That's kind of weird. *Dan T.* 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the dilema of allowing folks with unclean hands to misuse administrative processes (or legal ones). It's more serious than that, the arbcom members have compounded the other two accounts conduct by taking the case and are on equal standing with them -- banning them makes no difference nor negates the affect it has on their percieved contributions to the event itself.  I cannot comment further, but yes, that's why it does not feel right in your gut.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. You can harass someone about concerns which are actually true just as easily as you can about fabricated concerns. It's really the way in which the complaints were made that constitutes harassment (although whether this applies here, I'm not sure). If it were just the complaints, I'd be soon banned too, and I'm not. -Amarkov moo! 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) They've been harassing him for a lot longer than the current issue. There is some documentation on the workshop and my evidence section. Kebron in particular is clearly a troll from SCOX (check his deleted edits if you're an admin, and his fib on the workshop) and his only edits have been to follow Merkey around. Pfagerburg is also a SCOX editor (self-admitted) whose original main interest was to poke at Merkey by adding negative info to his bio. I personally would rather see Pfagerburg topic-banned, as he has acknowledged his mistakes and seems interested in editing other articles, but I don't get to vote. Thatcher131 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131 wrote above that Pfagerburg has "been harassing [Merkey] for a lot longer than the current issue". I believe that that's pretty egregiously incorrect.  Pfagerburg  didn't even arrive until March 2006, but the official "current issue" (Merkey's attempts to get his way by making legal threats) has been an issue since Merkey's earliest edits, in September 2005, and all the other issues with Merkey have also been constant since the beginning.  See Merkey's response on September 16, 2005 to someone reverting Merkey's addition of himself to a list of "Famous Cherokee":


 * "I have reviewed the vanity guideline and this clearly doesn't fit into it. I also note you live in Australia, so please keep your opinions and your funnel webs and sheep to yourself. I find it disturbing that my people have a slate of singers and actors and porn stars listed as "special" Cherokees who live a world of celluloid trash and fantasy and don't really contribute to the advancement of mankind, while I and other Cherokees who have advanced high technology and actually produce works of merit for society are not allowed to bring credibility to my people.  I strongly disagree with your assessment, and as such, I revert your edits for these reasons.  Whether I am famous or infamous, I am still notable, with over 35,000 web page hits, all of them about me.  I am not a bad person because Novell says so, or because Novell's paid off stooge judge says so (who was booted off the case by the State legislature for taking bribes from Novell). I am also a member of the Cherokee Nation and you are not.  This is an issue of Tribal Sovereignty, and you are stepping onto our turf"


 * Those two edits are a nice combination of a Conflict of Interest, some Original Research (in Merkey's case, that's usually a euphemism for "stuff made up out of whole cloth"), a Personal Attack, an implied Legal Threat, and gratuitous evidence-free Libel about a third party (Judge Anthony Schofield, who of course was never actually found by the legislature – nor anyone else but Merkey – to have been "taking bribes" from anyone). As I tried to explain in my comment at the RFC that you noted on the evidence page, it is well-documented that Merkey has been in his current condition since the previous millennium, which is why it is no surprise that there has been no change during his 22-month history at Wikipedia.  There is no way that anything in Pfagerburg's 16-month history could have been going on for a "lot longer" than the issues with Merkey.  Al Petrofsky 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific trigger for this case was Merkey's insistence that Wikipedia would be committing a Federal Crime unless he was allowed to remove certain disputed content from articles about the Cherokee Nation. Pfagerburg and Kebron both particpated in this dispute even though neither was really a stakeholder in the argument except as people who oppose pretty much anything Merkey does on Wikipedia, but their involvement in Merkey-related issues (described as poking Merkey with a stick) goes back before the present dispute on Cherokee membership. Thatcher131 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Al, my involvement in this mess does precede the start of Mr. Merkey's legal threats regarding Wikipedia and the issue of native American identity. As I already pointed out in the evidence section, I edited an article in spite of a COI.  Everything was factual and cited, but as ArbCom has observed, the facts painted Mr. Merkey in a negative light.  And that has factored into ArbCom's decision to ban me for a year.  I've recently added a motion to ask them to reconsider the length of the ban and/or the appropriateness of a total ban versus a topic ban, so we'll see how that goes. Pfagerburg 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you caught me in a lie?? And?? What about the mess of tribble droppings spewed by Mr Merkey? So I thought I use the Merkey school of defense and claim the most outrageous things possible and baffle the board with BS. It sure worked for Merkey. So once again, recently... have any of my edits been wrong? Every edit I made was just getting rid of Merkey's BS and I am on the same footing as him? Would of it been better if I accused some of the ArbCon members of sexual harassment? Maybe a "symbolic" gesture.... a ban of a year for Mr Merkey and 11 months in my case. You tell me... how were my edits so harmful? (RECENTLY in the last year) Other than removing Mr Merkey's exaggerated claims from articles (the same type of exaggeration used in this ArbCon by him), what was my crime? --Kebron 10:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also a self-admitted participator on SCOX, albeit very rarely. Are you saying that any participation on that board is evidence of bad intent?  --MediaMangler 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

64.165.13.5 11:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on why you are here. See Flo's comment below.  While I think an topic ban would be sufficient for Pfagerburg, it is true that the initial reason both editors came here was to bug Merkey (or that what it looks like from their contributions) so banning them on that grounds might be good policy.  Also, as I have noted before, Arbitration is a club, not a surgical scalpel, and the best way not to be on the wrong side of a decision is not to misbehave in the first place. Thatcher131 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Added
I added a proposal at the workshop page, could you look at it (sorry, just worried it get may overlooked if since it's on voting phase already)? Kwsn (Ni!) 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground...
and Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere. The users being banned in this case have disrupted Wikipedia by bringing outside issues on to Wikipedia. They are all being banned to stop the disruption. FloNight 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the wording of the "Wikimedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere" principle, which has been adapted from another case, the words "other Wikimedia projects" should be changed to "other websites" to be more directly applicable here. Newyorkbrad 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. FloNight 15:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stating what I already suspected. You ban the victim of stalking and harassment in hope the other parties will leave as well.   That's what I thought was going on here.  I think it would be prudent to state this in the proceedings and remove the other flimsy and matchstick causes listed (since there were never any legal threats).   I would advise changing the proceedings now since as it stands with this admisson, the proceedings may be libel and defamation and violate WP:BLP.  Just a suggestion.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really... they are banning the perpetrators of bad behavior, no matter which side they're on in the various fights. The fact that some of them may also be the victims of others' bad behavior is irrelevant. *Dan T.* 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Government
I moved my flights to Germany to tommorrow morning and will be gone for about two weeks. I will be back in the US August 10. I expect this matter will be closed by then. Several points before I am blocked and this matter closed. Dan's comments lead me to post this statement. This will be my last statement here until I take the steps to address this issues from the various groups including this one.

I have not taken legal actions for the past two years to stop these people from their continued disruption because of the WP:NLT policy. I was informed that any legal actions to address this situation would result in a ban. As a result, I have had to endure an enormous level of harassment both on and off wiki as a result. The problem in this case is that we have criminal conduct on the part of these other parties pursuant to the Utah Annotated Code and Federal Law. Given these facts, this community has been a player in the matter using undue influence to prevent me from taking the necessary action. The community has failed completely to address the problem and now we have an admission from one of the arbitors they are instituting a ban simply to make everyone go away and that the matters discussed are illusionary in order to justify it. This is essense means my reluctance to take action against these individuals was for naught and resulted in the same outcome.

Our analysis of this situation leads us to believe the WP:NLT policy violates 42 USC 1985, conspiracy by indviduals to violate civil rights under United States Law through threats, blocking, and undue influence by preventing users to take legal action when criminal matters are involved, for which the Foundation and the arbitors are personally liable under numerous doctrines. Since Wikipedia is not a sovereign in any sense, it has no immunity for these acts nor do the arbitors. Section 230 does not exempt these ocurrances.

Compounding the situation is the fact that none of the admins on the project, Wales, nor the arbcom have a charter from the Foundation to exist or exercise such control over users, nor is there any waiver from this user agreeing to such in so far as criminal activity is involved. The facts are overwhelming and compelling. An editor has been pursued from day one by internet stalkers. The Foundation instituted a previous ban then lied to the community and the public who was behind it to obfusciate liability. The acts of bad faith here are so numerous, they cannot be listed here in a reasonable time period. The community then assured this editor it would be handled and instead allowed it to continue while they watched for their own pleasure and gratification.

Combined with this is a compendium of evidence provided by former employees of the Foundation of mismanagement of the affairs of the Foundation, its moneys, and other materials which are to say the least, extremely disturbing. I will not comment further on this area except off-wiki with the parties involved, but it appears from the evidence fraud, co-mingling of funds, stock churning, and a constructive trust has been created with the assets of this project and the foundation by members of this group which precludes me or any of my associates from providing any additional funding to the Foundation. I need to address these matters directly with the Foundation to determine if any of these allegations are true, and if this proceeding is an attempt to use undue influence. In any event, these matters need to be publicly addressed and corrected by the Foundation if they are false.

The facts appear there is a group in power who toriously interfere with other editors without authority for which the Foundation is liable under liability doctrines due to negligence.

The first step is to address these matters through mail with the foundation, and that failing, discussing other options with the parties involved. The following request is made to initiate this off-wiki discussion of next steps.


 * 1. I require the addresses of all members of the arbcom who voted on the matter in order to send formal letters which list those matters involving the conduct of the arbcom and these proceedings.  I have most of the information already.  Please email your physical address to jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com so a letter can be sent to you and the foundation.  I also need Jimmy Wales mailing address for receipt of these letters.


 * 2. The physical address and contact information of the legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * 3. I will initiate formal mediation with a mediator for which I will pay for their services to explore and discuss the various issues this case has presented.

I look forward to discussing this matter further with the parties involved off wiki and hope we can come to a mutual agreement.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Merkey, I noticed that you cited a specific federal law to support your claim that WP:NLT is legally actionable. Thank you.  Genuinely and without sarcasm, thank you for providing a citation in support of your claim.  IANAL, but I learned details of that law as part of P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training).  Editing Wikipedia is not a civil right.  Therefore, 42 USC 1985 does not apply. Pfagerburg 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not being stalked and subjected to criminal harassment is a civil right, for which the government has a compelling interest to stop.  Jeff 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any communications concerning potential litigation involving the Foundation should be addressed to the Foundation's legal counsel. No further posts should be made to this thread. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)