Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Workshop

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)


 * Well, even if we assume that your original banning was a mistake (and therefore all subsequent bans of your other accounts were the perpetuation of that mistake) that does not erase the edits made by you under those user names. Rather than saying you were previously banned, I can say, you have a long history of making legal threats, citing the comments made by various accounts but without mentioning the blocks and bans that resulted. Thatcher131 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not getting it. You may not use evidence of another account as those issues were previously addressed and concluded with the foundation at that time.  It's not relevant here and you may not use it.  The evidence is banned.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It would help if you would more clearly explain your contention. The word "mediation" has a specific meaning but you are using it in a different way, so it is hard for me to tell exactly what your contention is.  And, as I have said twice so far, if you believe you have some agreement that the edits made under your former accounts can not be mentioned here, you should attempt to clarify that through the ArbCom closed mailing list (which Jimbo reads and is a frequent contributor, I am told) by e-mailing any member of ArbCom. Thatcher131 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I raised the issues. The arbcom is going to do whatever it is going to do, then based on the result, I am going to do whatever I need to do.  There is no sense debating about it.  The issue is raised.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, 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. Maybe a block was justified on the basis that you had a suit going against the SCOX editors and were also disputing with them here, I don't really know.  I'm certainly comfortable with restricting my future comments, evidence and proposals to your contributions under your present account since your return on May 2. Thatcher131 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should remove all allegations related to these accounts and past incidents. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, why? The committee can (and arguably should) use all pertinent information to reach a decision. I would imagine that the past behavior of parties in this dispute could be considered relevant, in that regard. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstained
I am going to abstain from further dialouge on the matter. As I said, the arbcom will do whatever it is going to do. Based on that outcome, I will do whatever I am required to do. That being said, good night to all. I will be traveling in Germany from July 27 through mid-August. I may have internet access from Germany, but this drama may have to unfold without me beginning Friday. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Merkey, please clarify your statement that "[b]ased on that outcome, I will do whatever I am required to do." The meaning of this statement is not clear. Newyorkbrad 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And that pretty much sums up the underlying problem here, no? Kirill 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your specific question? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible remedy
Disclaimer: My only interest in this is that I discovered Mr. Merkey through the ANI page. What about having Mr. Merkey change his user name (inform arbcom and an extra admin or two) and then he can edit anonymously and thus eliminate his status as a troll magnet. This would probably go along with the native american topic ban. R. Baley 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) withdraw suggestion R. Baley 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Position
I will not accept any bans from this committee. If banned, I will take whatever actions I need to here as required to protect my interests. This proceeding is biased and an apparent railroading. You do not punish the victim of stalking and allow the stalkers to roam freely. My take is a third rate programmer who is also an arbitor is pushing this along with a group of self-identified gay editors and admins to protect their power base and who have a beef with me. It's manifestly unfair and tortious interference with my business dealings. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Merkey you say "interference with my business dealings". Perhaps you have a WP:COI issue? WAS 4.250 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tortious interference seems to constitute a legal threat against the Arbcom. Wow. - Ehheh 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, he clearly means someone else's interference. -- 146.115.58.152 03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the workshop page with a back-and-forth dialog (which is not what it is for). But I want to point out that Mr. Merkey's recent statements here and on the workshop amount to a comprehensive legal theory under which he can sue the Wikimedia Foundation for blocking him. "Any contributor or visitor has a 'right to edit' articles on Wikipedia because the Wikimedia Foundation has stated this is the 'Free Encyclopedia anyone can edit'. The Foundation makes these representations to the general public as a non-profit charity in order to solicit donations. If these statements were untrue, for example, all contributors to the Foundation could demand their money back and claim the Wikimedia Foundation is a fradulent charity, and potentially seize all of the Foundations assets." Guy the admin breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Foundation by threatening me the way he did. If an admin is given priviledes here, he has a fiduciary duty if loyalty not to act contrary to Foundation policy. Wikipedia Policies are secondary, there is no duty there and the Foundation has stated as much anyone can edit is their representation to the public in exchange for being allowed to enjoy non-profit status, and receive contributions from the public. In other words, no admin can ever threaten to block an editor, because in so doing, the admin would violate the Foundation's promise that "anyone can edit", which must override the community's ability to govern itself. "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 recover moneys from the Foundation and the participants for breach of conventants of good faith and fair dealings."
 * His essay Right to edit posits
 * Then in his Request for comment he writes
 * Now on the workshop page he writes

(despite his effort to sanitize his own remark ). In summary, Merkey holds to a legal theory that he has a right to edit and that he can sue for damages, up to and including seizing the Foundation's assets, if he is blocked. He has been building this position ever since his editing privilege was reinstated, and it is clear that his statements, taken as a whole, constitute a threat to sue the Foundation unless he is left alone. Note that he appears to take absolutely no responsibility for his own actions, such as edit warring and creating an attack article on another editor--it's all the fault of trolls. (And now, apparently, the gay cabal.)

I began the workshop page because I thought this was an interesting case, and it seems he is being trolled, and maybe even that he did not get a fair shake back in 2005 and 2006, and I wanted to make a balanced presentation that covered both his behavior and the trolling. However it is now clear that his behavior is incompatible with editing here. His allegations are deeply offensive (I wonder if I am a "third rate programmer" or a gay admin). And his whole purpose since his reinstatement has been to create a legal theory under which he must be allowed to edit unobstructed and without regard to basic behavioral norms, or he will sue. If I hadn't gotten involved in the workshop I would block him now, and I hope the Foundation has the backbone to stand up to him this time. Thatcher131 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that anyone can edit. Go to a library and make an edit as an anon. There is no guarantee one can edit under their real name. There is no guarantee that one's edits will not be deleted. WAS 4.250 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How is his claim that "anyone can edit" and that this is a legally-enforceable right square with his desire to have admin powers so that he can ban everybody he thinks is a "troll" or "harrasser"? *Dan T.* 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, ten points to Gryffindor! Thatcher131 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He justified that in Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Something along the lines of "every editor is equal, but financial contributors are more equal". Seriously. -Amarkov moo! 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell he equates investing his money in a for profit business that sells wikpedia on a hard drive with investing in wikipedia. Further he seems to believe this gives him legal rights to influence wikipedia content. If I am wrong, I hope someone can clarify. WAS 4.250 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He has actually contributed money to the Foundation (at least, I think so, he claims it and nobody says he's lying). -Amarkov moo! 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that he has contributed substantial sums to the wikimedia foundation. I do not find him credible. WAS 4.250 01:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it, as far as it was made clear last time this was brought up. It's all a moot point though, as JVM stated a while back that he has instructed Wolf Mountain to stop all (or any) donations to the foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.47.96 (talk • contribs)