Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2

Let me explain with an analogy why giving special status to financial contributors is a horrible idea.
Assume there's there's this employee at a company. Now, this person has contributed substantially to the company. He's done some great work, and has gotten the company $500,000 worth of research grants. This employee only has one problem: he is disruptive. Nobody likes working with him, because he isn't very civil in disagreements, and he accuses anyone who points out that he's incivil of being part of a group that doesn't like him because of some things he's done outside the company. Now, should this company retain the person, despite the fact that he is causing the other employees lots of stress, just because he's done some good things for the company too? Or should they fire him, so that other people have a better environment to work in? -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldnt try to answer such a question without financial details of the company, how many employees it hires, how much it needs./relies on the $500,000 etc. Often the guy who puts $500,000 is the boss and if the employees dont like him they know where to go. So such a hypothetical question is, IMO, unanswerable, SqueakBox 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I neglected to mention a few things. He's not in senior management, so the power to kick him out easily does exist, if enough people who have been with the company for a while want him gone (and this company is, amazingly, set up so that employees can actually complain about bad bosses). The other questions are subjective, so I won't specify those. I'll just note that other employees, while not necessarily getting large grants, still provide value to the company, which may be worth more than the 500 grand from one person. -Amarkov moo! 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well on that basis I dont agree with you, SqueakBox 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by ChurchOfTheOtherGods
Moved from the main context as questions not a coherent outside view. --pgk 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merkey purports to have donated $500,000 to the wikimedia foundations, and seems to claim special treatment for doing this. At no stage have I seen any confirmation of this.


 * That's all the money I have invested in the Foundation and Wikipedia Development at WMG. It's none of your business how its divided.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, just so everything can be put in it's proper context, when you say you have donated $500,000 to Wikipedia, you mean that you have actually invested that in another company? This seems contradictory.  I read the above as saying that you have not given Wikipedia any actual cash at all.  Is this correct? ChurchOfTheOtherGods 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Has money changed hands? Or is it the case that it is "in kind" donation, regarding work on the Cherokee Wiki, as I have seen claimed off-wiki? I don't quite see the point of it in any case, but it would be good to be clear on this point.

To Jeff: Please understand that I am not denying that you have donated, or denying the worth of any donations you have made, just seeking clarity on how this works. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipediareview, and a general comment
WikipediaReview is a site that's highly critical of Wikipedia. It describes itself as "a forum dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia." It's somewhat predictable that such a site contains allegations of off-wiki cliques, cabals, and other non-wiki-friendly behaviour. They probably aren't that far from the truth in many respects, though.

Jeff's specific allegation that this RfC was triggered by a clique acting in cahoots is somewhat far-fetched, and follows Jeff's habitual "noes, I'm being victimised" pattern. This RfC was triggered in direct response to Jeff's own continued and paranoid assumption that anyone disagreeing with his edits is here to troll him. He himself appears to have been acting off-wiki with User:Duk to have "troll" accounts instantly banned without all that bothersome protocol, so his claims of being the victim of off-wiki manipulation based at wikipediareview are somewhat hollow.

I disagree with this RfC existing, not through any sympathy for Jeff, but because I think he should have been banned within days of coming back, or better simply not allowed back in. He is disruptive, habitually assumes bad faith and the majority of his edits show considerable bias, apparently driven by his involvement in Indian politics, and his overt hatred of the LDS. I can't say I disagree with him on the last point, but WP:POV. He's driving real users away / having them banned and all he's bringing in is trolls.

He also appears to be being somewhat "liberal with the truth" if he considers the act of investing in his own company makes him one of Wikipedia's largest donators, but lying is part of his long-term pattern anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.168.171 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, Merkey wasn't saying that Wikipedia Review was organizing the off-wiki conspiracy; rather, the thread he linked to (which MONGO "munged" under the silly "attack sites" policy) was exposing the alleged conspiracy, and criticizing it. *Dan T.* 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is the distinct possiblity that the link he added was bullshit and a personal attack to do so. It was just another post made by another banned editor which was transcluded by another banned editor. Seems a lot of contributors to WR are either banned or end up that way. Makes for an interesting educational lesson I might add.--MONGO 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed very telling and perhaps indicative that we need to change our banning policy, SqueakBox 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I mean, who knows whose next, Squeekers.--MONGO 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, I suspect neither you nor I, SqueakBox 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible to ban me for linking to attack sites since I never do it. That is the best way to handle it...just don't do it and it solves a lot of problems.--MONGO 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since BADSITES me neither, best to be an implacable opponent but not link oneself until the community finds it acceptable methinks, and this is an ongoing discussion as we see for the Gracnotes rfa, SqueakBox 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

... appears to have been acting off-wiki with User:Duk to have "troll" accounts instantly... . WTF ... For the record - I've had no off-wiki communication with Jeff regarding trolls, with the exception my unblocking email where I said I'd try to keep an eye out for them (this email was posted at ANI). As for instantly blocking trolls - if they start posting viscous personal attacks, ad homeniums and unrelated court documents from decade old court cases just to malign and "run down" an editor - yes I'm going to block on site, and so should any other admin. This is especially true when there is a pack-mentality to the abuse. --Duk 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why JVM picked up a six month old thread in WR as part of his attack on whomever. I'm also losing track on who his opponents are, but that seems to be part and parcel of this. If anyone wants to go look at the current thread on JVM there, I think they'll find that there's no real coonection between that old thread and the current thread, or for that matter the old thread and anything else current at WR. And until MONGO got in on the act, there was little connection between JVM and their usual obsessions, in their eyes. Well, except for the POV ownership of various topics, and the abuse of privilege angle.


 * I gather that other WR-ites hold much the same opinion as DTobias and I do: that JVM's opponents in some of the articles in question (e.g. Mountain Meadows massacre) are definitely trying to slant the article, but that JVM is making himself a pain to work with and really isn't willing to play the Wiki game according to the rules. It seems to me personally that there are some POV problems with his edits. Be that as it may, the picture of WR as a participant on one side or the other of JVM's battles is, as far as I can tell, inaccurate. Mangoe 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add to this that User:Duk's services in protecting JVM from the various trolls (e.g. this page) raise my eyebrows. Mangoe 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding wikipedia review, my refusal to mediate
I refused to enter into mediation with Merkey because I did not see, and continue to not see, any dispute between myself and Merkey regarding content. My disputes with him are soley regarding his atrocious editing habits.

Wikipedia review is full of shit. I suspect Tom Harrison was totally unaware of this RFC. Rootology and his fellow 9-11 truthers believe that there is a grand conspiracy that I am a part of to supress their truthiness on Wikipedia. They are wrong. In any case, if there was a grand conspiracy, why wouldn't I just have Tom block Merkey for life? It's not like anyone would unblock him, at this point. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your last statement is unverified opinion, SqueakBox 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So? It's also true. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactored sup[port and oppose comments from JVM's second comment
Users who support
 * 1) support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support as someone who has not contributed financially though I think there are issues with proving that one is a major contributor I also think in the present set up wikipedia needs to attract financial contributors and to maintain a professional atmosphere re contributitors as without money wikipedia doesnt have much of a future nor is there a solid business plan that I am aware of to generate money (such as ads etc), SqueakBox 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who oppose:


 * 1) You say that financial contributors should be treated like any other editor, then say that they may never be called disruptive or banned. It doesn't work like that; disguising extra priveleges behind "everyone's equal!" doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No support, you lost me there, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Your assertion is unsupported by WP sourcing, editing and behaviour policy, nor should it be. If edits to this encyclopedia could be bought (through donations and a subsequent licence to disrupt), it would be utterly unhelpful to folks and the project would ultimately crash (except as a marketing platform and yes, at least tens of millions of marketing "donations" could likely be extracted through the sheer traffic and momentum of this wiki for years before it at last wound down). As an aside, privately and unofficially, the leadership will indeed tend to cut a heavy financial contributor far, far more slack than the wonted editor and that's ok by me too. But it sounds to me like they have done already. It's up to them as to where they'll take it from here which is to say, how much more slack WP can bear. Gwen Gale 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "afford" - even your use of language speaks of the issue. Does not matter how many of you oppose.  ni-go-di-s-ge-s-di. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that it doesn't matter if people disagree, then why did you essentially ask for comment by placing this section here? -Amarkov moo! 02:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are some harsh realities here, and whether you agree or not.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He may be forgetting they have to balance all the free labour they get along with the donations. It's hard enough keeping skilled editors around here whilst maintaining community driven mega traffic and attracting donors. Gwen Gale 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Vehement oppose - Perhaps I'm going out on a limb here, but... what? Being a "major financial contributor" gives you no additional editing rights, full stop. What you are suggesting above is that "everyone is equal, but some [those with cash] are more equal than others". That is just about as far opposed to the Foundation's position as it's possible to be, AFAIK. We do not need to walk on eggshells just because there's a major financial contributor in the room; otherwise the project's NPOV ethos would be at the mercy of which ever big multinational/politician/etc. stumped up the biggest wads of funding. If a major funding contributor is acting disruptively in the project space, they are eligible for just the same conduct warnings (and eventually, ultimata) as any other editor. Nobody should be "threatened", whatever their status, but there's a difference between threats and a blunt message pointing out the precariousness of one's position. Your points about "significant influence in the public sector" and "the same business space" look very much like thinly-veiled threats of legal or political action if you don't get your way (please correct me if I'm wrong about this). Saying the same thing in more words does not make it any less at odds with Wikipedia policy. --YFB ¿  02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Forgive and Forget" is the most basic principle of online communities and MeatBall Wiki. It's also at the core of Wikipedia.  This is not your or anyone elses personal power ranger platform to get jollies off blocking or pushing others around.  Do it on someone else's nickel and buy your own servers and host your own Wiki if you feel that way. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that comment addressed to me? I'm sorry but I honestly cannot understand what you mean. Please rephrase and/or elaborate. --YFB ¿  02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am referring to a lot of admins on this site I have encountered who are more interested in "the kill" than being a steward. For a lot of folks the block button satisfies their deep seated hunting instincts.  admins are stewards, not soldier ants, and not warriors. They should not "attack" anything that comes through the hive entrance out of instinct. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, although an important part of stewardship is protecting the "hive" from things which don't belong there, like anteaters and lawyers. However, I still have no idea what that has to do with my comment. Perhaps you could either address what I've said directly, or place your comments under a separate heading? --YFB ¿  02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC),
 * It's ok, I will place it here. You refer to "ethos" for ethics. That's what this is all about.  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.  All the rest of these rules and non-sense on enwiki is preempted by their policies, not your "ethos" or mine or anyone else.   That's what I am saying. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, now I see what you're getting at. I don't believe that Guy is "threatening" you; he's just stating the facts of the matter, in his (apparently characteristic) blunt manner. Guy, and I think most others here, believe that you are currently acting in a disruptive way by making impossible demands and assuming bad faith without evidence. It is the policy of Wikipedia that disruptive editors are blocked to prevent wider damage to the project; "anyone can edit", but only if they do so within our policies. We assume good faith, provide dispute resolution processes, give second chances where possible... but eventually the community's patience is exhausted. We have mechanisms to deal with trolling and harrassment, but they only work if the victim co-operates, shows good faith and stays on-topic. If more time is being spent on wikilawyering than on constructive editing, eventually it becomes necessary to force the battle to another venue. It looks as though this point is approaching rapidly in this case, so you would be well advised to take on board the constructive comments of those who're participating in this RfC. Otherwise, in spite of your financial contributions etc., there will be little chance of you being allowed to continue editing. That's not a threat of any sort, it's just the way things are. I should note that I'm not an admin and have absolutely zero prior involvement with you or any of your "adversaries" (for want of a better word). So I'm not getting any jollies or playing power ranger and will gain nothing at all from seeing you blocked - I don't even edit any of the articles you're involved with. I'm just trying to talk a bit of sense. --YFB ¿  03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * within our policies - that's the real issue. If the Foundation takes money based upon public representations, this community does not have the power to set any policies apart from those the Foundation allows.   That's the end of it.  You guys can believe what you want, and I do agree with almost all of your rules and that they are reasonable, but these rules are subservient to the Foundations policies.   Blocking me won't change that.  Banning me won't change that.  Threats (I see more of them there) don't change that.  The environment of fear everyone seems to live in on this site disturbs me.  It's not a good place to be in everyone is concerned about getting blocked and has to live in fear.  I for one do not live in fear, not here or anywhere else.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So can you actually point out a Foundation policy that contradicts the right of a community consensus (and/or admin decision) to block or ban a persistent disruptive user? Or one that prevents an admin from warning said user that continuing their current pattern of behaviour will undermine their arguments and lead to a block, particularly if the user has "contributed over $500,000 to the Foundation's hosting costs etc."? I rather suspect not. If it had such policies, it would not have permitted en.wiki to enact its own contradictory policies (e.g. the blocking policy). BTW, if you see more threats in my posts... well, that rather underlines what SirFozzie has said above about looking under bushes for monsters. I can't threaten you, I have nothing to threaten you with. I'm trying to help you to avoid digging a hole any deeper than the one you've made for yourself already. Categorising people's comments according to their financial contributions to the project is the absolute embodiment of the sort of behaviour that will not help your situation. --YFB ¿  03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no community if the foundation erases the user databse and starts over. There is no community if the Foundation runs out of money and your servers are shut down.  There are no policies if the servers are erased or turned off.  I can see we are not on the same level communicating so I will refrain from wasting more of your time.  As for this RFC, its illusionary, the genuine issue of fact here was "Jeff is being trolled"  "Jeff may get the trolls blocked"  "Jeff should not assume all of them are trolls, and try to trust others."  and kind words from SirFozzie. Good Night.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you're missing something, though. When you contributed to the Foundation, you knew that Wikipedia is user run. You either did or should have known that meant that your financial contributions might not be cared about by the community. If the Foundation wishes to step in and say "hey, we need this money, you can't block people who give it", then that would have to be accepted. But until they do that, there is no pressing reason to believe that blocking disruptive people, even if they have given money, will make Wikipedia shut down. You need to make a case that you are not in fact being disruptive, and that you have not done. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run by the Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit with a fiduciary duty of loyalty to its contributors based upon its public representations.   The "Community/Project" is a project of the Foundation.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Amarkov, there is no consensus that what you are saying is the community view. The only things that are likely to make wikipedia shut down would be legal problems in the US or running out of money as most large server providers etc need paying, SqueakBox 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose. It seems an outrageous affront to claim special rights due to ones financial contributions, or conversely, that the worth of ones edits is discounted because one does not have the means to financially contribute.  I am unsure how much, and in what form Mr Merkey has donated.  Is there a record of it? ChurchOfTheOtherGods 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO only money could explain the tolerance they've shown him thus far. It's their call. Gwen Gale 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, as meaningless and contradictory. If contributors don't deserve special rights or special treatment, then what's the point of the whole rest of the opinion, which sounds like it's asking for special treatment on the grounds of having made a lot of contributions? *Dan T.* 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like we do not have everyone's views who are involved. Perhaps we should leave the RFC open to get all the possible viewpoints.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose of course.  You can't buy exemption from policy and you can't buy the right to be a dick. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose of course.  However, I do feel that the Foundation owed Merkey better treatment by the Foundation itself than what they have provided.  Jimbo or some other official spokesman for the Foundation should have discussed Merkey's unbanning with the community well in advance instead of making the decision almost entirely off-wiki.  Of course such a discussion very likely would have turned into an absolute cluster f**k as Merkey's detractors all swooped into it -- and that would have been a Good Thing.  Level-headed admins could then have handed out warnings and blocks to Merkey's most passionate critics (quite possibly including myself), causing those critics to adjust their behavior or leave.  More importantly, Merkey himself would have been able to see the community police his critics and would have developed faith that it would continue to do so.  With that faith, Merkey would have been much less likely to respond to provocation.  --MediaMangler 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - sheer balls. Moreschi Talk 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Oppose - This is just foolish. All users are treated equally here. Admins get no more say in content than any other user, and neither should donors. And treated equally doesn't mean "if you're going to block me, you have to block everybody else as well", it means that if somebody acts properly, they'll be treated properly regardless of admin or money status, and if they act like a troll, they'll be treated like a troll regardless of admin or money status. As much as we appreciate any monetary donations that help keep the site running, if the Foundation were to give immunity/"god status" to anybody that donated then it would quickly alienate and lose any non-donor users who'd become "second citizens". And although the project can't survive without the donations that keep the servers running, neither can it survive without the very editors that give their time to contribute to it. Money to run servers doesn't do any good without information to store on the servers. Both are equally needed, and so both groups are treated the same. --Maelwys 11:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactored threaded discussion
#::Alright, you get another chance. Contignent that you discuss issues on my talk page before taking any actions or you yourself engaging in revert warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) See notes below. This Rfc appears to be abuse of process. I have no opinion regarding this user at this point. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please block this user if he comes near me again. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)  I'll let the admins make up their own minds. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Conditions proposed by Alanyst

 * 1) * He does not henceforth call anyone a troll, sockpuppet, or make any discernibly bad-faith assumption of any Wikipedia editor, including anon accounts, unless and until he has made a proper Checkuser request that results in a finding that such a label is warranted, or unless an outside administrator concludes that the account is a single-purpose account aimed at harassing him;
 * 2) * He makes no unsourced edits to any article, even if he promises to provide sources later;
 * 3) * He answers challenges to his edits or arguments with on-topic arguments, and does not attack the challenger's motives or make wild claims that are irrelevant to the discussion;
 * 4) * He refrains completely from implying or stating that his edits are to be preferred on the basis of his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation, or based on his ancestry, or IQ, or any other factor besides the edits' encyclopedic value and compliance with WP policies;
 * 5) * He agrees to be banned immediately if he is in violation of any of these conditions, as judged by an established dispute resolution process.
 * I further endorse Alanyst's suggestions. Gwen Gale 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As do I. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further endorse these suggestions. --Maelwys 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot endrose Alanyst's suggestions because they violate Foundation Policy and require consideration for edting outside of established policy. I will honor the words of Sir Fozzie. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? What specific conditions do you object to, and which specific policies do you think they violate?  Are there any of the conditions that you are willing to commit to? alanyst /talk/ 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary


 * 1) Oppose with Comments. Time for an area of policy to be addressed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed some very disturbing materials related to Hipocrite over at Wikipedia review with a lot of background. Based on these materials and admissions by an insider, it appears this Rfc and other items were instigated by Tom Harrison and other members of an outside group as an abuse of process mechanism.  I will accept Sir Fozzy's recommendations, but I have no opinion about this user anymore, good or bad.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry for being so pedantic, are you saying that Tom Harrison is part of a group that is bent on abusing process with regards to you, in cahoots with Hipocrite, and that Tom was the one behind this RFC? It would be good to be absolutely clear on this point. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The comments speak for themselves. I do not know any of these accounts listed other than Hipocrite.  I also do not understand all of the slang words they are using, but the text indicates there is an outside group that uses a messaging technology to coordinate 3/1 1/1/1RR attacks and other activity.  None of it sounds like something legitimate editors should be doing.  There appear to be many "editing for consideration" schemes which violate the anyone can edit standard there by these various groups strong arming users for favors in exchange for right to edit.  Users are individuals, not groups.  The materials can be reviewed here  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Messaging technology" is it? Then it must be you I have to thank for the absence of one of the carrier pigeons. I knew something was wrong when Nelly was overdue; she had always been so reliable. Get in line behind the 911-truthers, Black-helicopter-spotters, and pseudo-science cranks, and I'll conspire against you when I get a minute. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently we are all acting in bad faith as members of a Cabal, despite the fact that I've never had private communications with any other poster in this RfC. One of Alanyst's suggestions, which I felt was very reasonable, was that Mr. Merkey should refrain from making accusations of stalking and conspiracy against good faith editors, yet here I find myself among the accused, by implication, a mere day later.  If Alanyst's argument needed any more support, certainly this is it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why a lot of admins make them and believe they themselves are not required to be civil. I am here because its the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". You did not ban me, the arbcom did not ban me, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees did due to legal issues related to off-wikipedia activities. I was unbanned after I concluded the matter, with Brad Patrick and Danny involved at every step -- as friends. I want you to consider yourself recused from dealing with edits or me if you are going to post threats. Have another admin do it. Deal with Duk on it or SirFozzie. If you threaten me again, I'll file an Rfc to have you desysoped. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey, though I don't doubt that there is a group coordinating attacks on you, it seems to me extremely unlikely that Mr. Harrison is a part of it. Difficult as it may be, you're going to have to do a better job - a much better job - of distinguishing good-faith editors from the trolls who plague you, or you'll alienate everyone and your real enemies will have won.Proabivouac 22:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bribery
I believe this is a form of bribery... I will give you money if you give me my way

"Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has pledged to donate and/or raise through venture groups $10,000,000.00 in donations to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on removal of restrictive processes, cabals, and procedures that require consideration from the general public for rights to edit the English Wikipedia contrary to the Wikimedia Foundations policy that "anyone can edit" in a free environment without an atmosphere of fear. This user will initiate the fundraising event when in his opinion the English Wikipedia has come into COMPLETE compliance with Wikimedia Foundation policies stated to the General Public . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=133474525

--Kebron 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am severely disappointed with Mr. Merkey's comments, both last night and today. His comments remind me of Orwell's Animal Farm. "Some animals are more equal than others". I have done what I can in this RfC to support Mr Merkey, because I do realize that there is a group that does provoke him endlessly, and he wants them to stop by any means necessary. However, this offer is not anything I can get behind, as it smacks of Ownership issues, over the whole encyclopedia itself, as well as articles. At this point, all I can do is disengage gracefully on the RfC. I have said my peace, asked Mr. Merkey to reconsider his attitude towards those who are NOT in that limited group, and will now step aside. *sighs* SirFozzie 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed with yours over at Wikipedia Watch as well, but it does not impact my faith in people or the project.  I have to say, this has been helpful and eye opening experience.  When I first engaged with Wikipedia is was something "fun" to do and I enjoyed it on that basis.  Because of that I tended to let go of myself in that amazing feeling of freedom.   There is another side of me, though, one that is cold and still, the side that deals in business issues.  There were many mysteries here that I now understand completely.  The good news here is that cold side of me is a neutral side, no emotion either good or bad about anyone o any subject -- just level.  Given that, I am prepared for the next phase.   My main objective here now is growth -- finanacial growth.  I would like to see the disconnections between the external messages of the project and Foundation eventually converge.  Hopefully, that will happen.  ni-go-di-s-ge-s-di. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His outrageous, disruptive, and divisive allegations of blackmail, extortion, etc. might be easily dismissed by some here, but this quote in particular: "Some of them donate or invest in Wikipedia Projects each year many times the life savings of an ordinary person" certainly does nothing to help build consensus. - Nyet 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Offering wikipedia money isnt bribery. What mind set really thinks that? Do we actually want to dioscourage serious wikipedia financial contributors. Unfortunately plenty of people in the world resent the rich and I am wondering if we are seeing some of that mentality here, SqueakBox 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm only posting this as context: Bribery and/or resentment of wealth have aught to do with this discussion. There is nothing in WP written policy about contributors being treated any differently from anyone else as to behaviour on this public wiki. How many skilled editors are going to donate their time if money can, in effect, buy unscholarly edits? WP's leadership has apparently, informally cut Jeffrey Vernon Merkey lots of slack in the past. That's understandable (and ok with me by the bye) but there are bounds to this kind of thing and IMHO it's going to be up to Wikipedia's leadership to decide where those bounds fall. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is openly asking for "special treatment," is all. At least he's being straightforward about it. Gwen Gale 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldnt suggest we treat Jeffrey different from other users either, SqueakBox 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing Statements
I do not believe that I need respond further here, as the threshold for an RFC has not been meet according to established standards. I appreciate SqueakBox's comments. Other comments about various folks being "disappointed" I am at a loss to respond to. I am not controllable by anyone other than me, and that's the same situation I think just about everyone on earth is in -- we control ourselves. That being said, I am here to help -- and I can help. I think I understand the concerns raised by Hipocrite, and I have been pushed into my business side by this and at the cold, distant, and objective place before I make "the kill" in business deals. It's clear I need to either buy out the foundation, or put in enough resources to move it away from this hostage model it's in with the various communities. Either way the next few months of press releases and fundraisers are going to be fun, and I hope yield positive results for everyone involved. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing statements? I don't think it's you that gets to close this, Jeff, no matter how much money you promise to raise at some future point to be decided entirely by yourself. The threshold for an RfC most certainly has been met, it needed 2 editors to show where they have tried, and failed, to resolve a dispute with you, and within 48 hours of the RfC being raised. That, as you will notice, has been done, and well within the time period requested, with comments from both User:Hipocrite and User:alanyst. Frankly, I'm surprised that more editors didn't support this, but there's still time. The outside views are almost unanimous in stating that you need to work on your behaviour. You yourself agreed to User:SirFozzies comments, and then almost instantly started demanding that users "stay away from you". Your behaviour is disruptive, Jeff, and your attitude makes it impossible for other editors to work with you. Accept that, and maybe you can start to change. If you don't accept that, you will probably end up being banned again.77.176.245.163 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why refusing meditation is irrelevant
There is no issue to meditate. Hipocrite claims Merkey is disruptive, Merkey claims he isn't (although he has not actually done this yet, I assume that he doesn't consider himself disruptive...). Meditation only works if there's room for compromise, and nobody would be satisfied with the compromise of "Merkey is only half disruptive". -Amarkov moo! 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, I like the outcome.  The RFC says I can have trolls blocked.  I do not think any of the trolls will be around much any more.  Since the trolls were the source of disruption, then it sounds like the issues are resolved.  The users who filed the Rfc will not have much contact with me either based on this outcome, which is perfect.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Trolls can be blocked regardless of the RfC. The issue here is your behavior, not theirs. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean mediation, not meditation, though it's possible that "a state of concentrated attention on some object of thought or awareness" could help too... *Dan T.* 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not catch that at first. Wow Dan, good eyes! Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Maybe we just speak a strange dialect over where I live, but I've mever heard the word "mediation"; I've always used "meditation" for that. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tall tales about large monies
It's humorous seeing Merkey try to insinuate he's contributed some large amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. I am certain he has not done so. Perhaps he's made a token gift; more likely nothing at all. It sounds like the usual bluster he goes on about to try to puff up his own importance. Similarly with his attempts to claim that he's widely influential among... whomever.

In any case, even if he had contributed money to the project, that is what it is; it has no bearing whatsoever on letting trolls (like Merkey) disrupt content articles. While I've been inactive on Wikipedia for the last seven months or so (job matters and all), I still think it is a great shame that someone decided to lift the permanent ban that Merkey so well earned himself (repeatedly). WP would simply be better if it did not allow this contributor to edit any pages. LotLE × talk 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should ban vandals not serious contributors like Jeffrey. Regardless of whether he has or hasnt donated money he should be welcomed here as a valuable contributor so I applaud his un blocking. We should be helping him become a good editor bnopt wanting to see him re-blocked, as with every good faith editor, IMO, SqueakBox 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A serious contributor does not make fanciful claims and fail to back them up when challenged about them. A serious contributor does not claim special privileges for editing or ownership of a particular article because they think they are more qualified than others.  A serious contributor does not ignore consensus whenever it goes contrary to his vision of How Things Ought to Be.  A serious contributor does not immediately launch into edit wars and all sorts of WP policy violations (WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS) after having been granted another chance to show good behavior after having been banned once already.  A serious contributor ignores provocations by trolls, or else calmly works through the established dispute resolution processes with the aid of neutral parties.  A serious contributor makes sure he understands WP policy and is willing to be governed by it through the community process, and is quick to correct his behavior if he is notified that he is in violation of policy.  In my opinion, Merkey has demonstrated that he is not a serious contributor.  alanyst /talk/ 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to figure out, or agree on, whether he's trying to contribute constructively. If his behavior is disruptive, that's all we need to know.  Friday (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here
but Merkey's hopefully an ally on the Mountain Meadows massacre pages and I have only admiration for his appropriate advocacies there. --Justmeherenow 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Related, but different, dispute with smmurphy
With some trepidation, I brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.3Csigh.3E_Merkey.27s_edit_warring_again, and UncleG recommended I bring it here. As I am presenting a different dispute from Hipocrite, I am placing it on the talk page. If it belongs on the project page, feel free to let me know or to move it.

The dispute between Mr. Merkey and I is based on our interpretations of WP:V. Mr. Merkey's view is that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)). He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page). He considered mediation as an option here, but in the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely. Having done so (much to his ire, based on his recent edit summaries to Cherokee, for instance here), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this. This conflict makes it very hard to edit the Cherokee article, although the dispute does not lessen Mr. Merkey's past positive contribution to the article.

Given Mr. Merkey's refusal to go through dispute resolution even after a deliberate discussion on the matter and on dispute resolution itself, I am not sure what course of action I should take or request be taken. My issue is not with unrelated comments on Mr. Merkey's talk or user page, nor with his continuing issues with trolling and accusing others of trolling. It is, as Akhilleus said at ANI, about his odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Except for his refusal to enter into any dispute resolution channel, these are not reasons to "ship out" Mr. Merkey. However, a number of users, including TriNotch, PFLY, and myself are interested in adding material to the article that does not satisfy Mr. Merkey's standards of WP:V, and we are reticent to act, a state of affairs that hopefully changes soon. Thanks for your consideration. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff doesn't care
You're deluding yourselves if you think Jeff cares about any of this. He's done his bit of pretending to bother with it, now he's claiming it is all finished and moot because we all agree he's being trolled, and that trolls should be banned. This, of course, is not the point of this RfC. The point of this RfC is Jeff's behaviour, which is massively unacceptable, and has been almost since his return to wikipedia.

Here's his current attitude to the RfC

("yawn" is, of course, a completely appropriate response to someone pointing out he's entirely missed the point of what's being discussed) (crowing tone regarding "failed" RfC)

Remember, Jeff was being pulled up for community sanction, something which he sidestepped quite neatly by raising his own community sanction against those disagreeing with him. Edit warring again, only on the WP:CSN pages, and it paid off - closed down both community sanctions (foolishly, but in good faith).

Jeff is disruptive, he's manipulative, regularly and habitually violates WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:ASR, and has proven over the course of the last couple of weeks that he thinks that the Policies_and_guidelines simply don't apply to him. He holds Wikipedia rules and acceptable behaviour in complete disregard.

Ban him.

8.7.49.235 08:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After being asked not to call people trolls instead "we follow him around" and he makes a list. HE removes sourced edits and we are the bad guys. Ummmmm ok....  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=133747095
 * --Kebron 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe he just wants to edit the encyclopedia instead of having his time and efforts caught up in the alleged concerns of others, including the initiator who wont even mediate with him. So yes I would be surprised if Jeffrey cares much about this page, SqueakBox 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As people have explained many times, meditation only works if there is some room for compromise. It's completely useless in issues of user conduct, where one person says "you're disruptive" and the other person says "no I'm not". A reasonable person would not agree to say "okay, I'm half disruptive" just to end a dispute, nor would someone say "Okay, they aren't that disruptive" if they believed the person was. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "alleged" concerns? Is my word not enough that I have concerns, or does someone else need to confirm that I do indeed have the concerns I say I do? -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SPA attacks
I have removed this deeply inappropriate thread posted by single-purpose attack-only account User:Al Petrofsky per WP:RfC:"RfC is not a venue for personal attack."Proabivouac 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is highly inappropriate
Whole cloth removal of the comment by Al Petrofsky is simply inappropriate, to my mind. He contributes information that is germane and topical, and is by no means a so-called "single-purpose attack". I am not Al, nor have I ever even communicated with him (though I do know him very vaguely by reputation), but his comment is almost self-evidently relevant here. Please do not remove it (on talk page rather than RfC seems fine though)... disagree with it sure, but don't blank it. LotLE × talk 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was inappropriate to remove it. When I saw that action taken, I couldn't fathom why it had been. I was around when the shenanigans with Merkey went down last time but I was blissfully unaware of them and I did not follow the saga at all. After having seen the reposting of that summary by User:Al Petrofsky I was inspired to do some more research into what went down last year. I've become resigned to the fact that history repeats itself, especially for those who fail to learn her lessons. I believe that User:Al Petrofsky did us, well, did me, certainly, a favour by posting this. It provides context and, I'd suggest, a road map of what can be expected. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments such as "...the man is seriously delusional and/or a pathological liar" are, by any standard, personal attacks, in violation of not just WP:NPA but also the explicit instructions of WP:RfC.
 * Al Petrofsky has pointed to similar comments about himself from Merkey, which should also be deleted. I don't understand why we're allowing this to occur; do we find it entertaining?
 * Merkey has claimed he is being stalked and harassed by participants in the SCOX messageboard, and lo, what do we have here? One poster writes, "Fun though it is baiting Merkey the best thing would be to leave him alone for a month he does not need help getting himself into trouble he is more than capable on his own."
 * Merkey brings it upon himself by attacking others, but the proper response is to remove Merkey's attacks, and to block him if he continues to post them.Proabivouac 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like for you to sit one day where I sit and experience it. I did not invite these individuals to this site -- they came on their own.  I did not ask Novell to file a lawsuit 11 years ago to claim my "work experience" was their property.  I did create Novell's SMP Netware OS that's made over 10 billion dollars in its product life, and founded a dozen companies, the cheapest of which sold for 10.1 million dollars.  When you have made the same achievements in life I have, then you can sit on judgment about what I "bring on myself".  I call it jealousy from these people.  Until then .... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor did you ask for this rfc, Jeffrey, SqueakBox 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All I meant by "bring[ing] it on [your]self" is that by naming Petrofsky in your off-topic response, you handed him a good excuse to post his off-topic screed. Perhaps he would have done so anyhow, perhaps not. I'd like to end discussion of this off-wiki feud so we can concentrate on content. Sound good?Proabivouac 05:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Al Petrofsky: Engaging with Merkey is not beneficial to an encyclopedia
Hi, I'm Al Petrofsky. You may remember me from such Merkey smears as "sinister and disturbed" (above), or "criminal stalk[er]" (in a legal filing), or "[perpetrator of] espionage, treason, and domestic terrorism" (on his website).

Merkey has recently claimed that he "contribute[s] more than $500,000.00 to the Foundation and/or MediaWiki/Wikipedia Companies, job, and projects yearly" (diff), that he has a third of a Billion dollars in off-shore personal assets (diff), and that he has been the target of numerous death threats and extortion attempts (diff). There is no evidence for any of these fanciful claims.

This gulf, between Merkey's statements and the world as the rest of us know it, is not a recent development. Thus, it is not likely to go away anytime soon. It has existed since at least 1998, when Judge Anthony Schofield found that Merkey "deliberately describes his own, separate reality" (ruling). Merkey likes to claim that that ruling was an aberration, written by a lone corrupt judge who was in Novell's pocket (diff; see also Merkey's letter at the time), but in fact a second judge, Steven L. Hansen (the Presiding Judge over that judicial district), considered and rejected Merkey's allegation that Judge Schofield's ruling had been marred by any bias or prejudice (see Judge Hansen's ruling).


 * You left out the part that right after Judge Hansen ruled, the Utah Judicial COnduct Commission removed not only him from the case, but Judges Schofield, but Hansen as well, and remanded the case to another Judge. You also left out the part te judge ruled it was "untimely" but failed to address any the issues it raised. Why don't you post the Affidavit of Prejudice so everyone can SEE what the judge was accussed of?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey's ridiculously counter-factual statements are not what you would expect from someone who simply has problems with a temper, or with arrogance, or with following rules, or with seeking consensus. I don't think it will help you reach a resolution to this matter for people to focus on those comparatively minor problems of Merkey's while ignoring the obvious major one: the man is seriously delusional and/or a pathological liar.

Assuming that Wikipedia seeks to create a compendium of knowledge about humanity's shared reality, rather than about one man's "own, separate reality", Merkey is the last person from whom any contribution should be sought or accepted. It would be one thing if he were simply contributing pointers to reliable sources that were then read and confirmed by other editors before their inclusion in the encyclopedia, but I believe that it is quite seldom, if ever, that Merkey has made such a contribution. As I wrote in March 2006 (diff):


 * ... I'm surprised that at the same time you (Fred Bauder) brought up this problem of reliabilty of sources (here), you mentioned "the excellent contributions [Merkey] is making in other areas of Wikipedia". I looked at a couple of Merkey's contributions to articles on Native American subjects, and they make interesting reading, but I see no particular reason to believe that they are nonfiction.  I certainly haven't read everything he's contributed, though.  Could you point out a few instances in which Merkey contributed something for which he cited a "reliable published work", and someone other than Merkey has verified that the reliable published work actually says what Merkey claims it says?

Bauder made no response. (As a courtesy to people who do not know Merkey's history and deserve better than to be doomed to repeat it, I just reverted Jimbo Wales's "Courtesy blanking" of that page.)

By the way, my only two previous comments about Merkey at Wikipedia were both made in March 2006 (the one above and this one; see also here), and I am among those who have criticized Vigilant for his pointless antagonization of Merkey (link; alt. link) (Vigilant uses the name RomanianConnection at Yahoo: link; alt. link). I have not wasted my time addressing a single word to Merkey since September 2005 (here are my last words to him, a letter necessitated by him having sued me). I have, however, made attempts to warn his potential victims, such as in this May 3, 2007 letter to the people Merkey most recently sued (that's the letter Merkey wildly mischaracterized here).

I will conclude with what Bruce Perens wrote about Merkey in 2004 (LWN comment 107571):


 * "Hey, I told you about this character last week. He belongs on every person's email kill file. Don't engage him, don't bother with him, don't waste a minute on him."


 * Perhaps you should post the public apology made by Bruce Perens to the Court where he admits to posting the death threats and apologizes for them to save his own butt. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(Merkey memorably misquoted this in his 2005 lawsuit, writing this: "Perens post[ed] and advocat[ed] Merkey's murder by posting statements on the public Internet that Merkey should be 'placed in a file of people to be killed'" (Complaint, paragraph 72).)

I believe Perens's advice was and is spot-on. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't have an "email kill file" (nor a "file of people to be killed"), but it does have rough equivalents: an indefinite block of the account "Jeffrey Vernon Merkey", and a reinstated ban of the person Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.


 * You left out the 100+ death threats posted at LWN and Slashdot. You also left out the death threats posted by Grendel, which I referenced in the RFC. ABIO goes, and the LWN comment in my article "I find no death threats on this site".  You left out the part that Jonathen Cohen was ORDERED by the court to take down the threats (which he refused to do until he was ordered to do so).  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Al Petrofsky 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This User, Al Petrofsky, has been making  Legal Threats off-site and in various postings directed at me, letters, and by other means.  This account and all incarnations (Vigilant is one of them) should be blocked indfef.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, that is at outright lie by Jeff Merkey. HE attempted to bring Al Petrofsky (and 200 anonymous users) from Yahoo to court. This: http://scofacts.org/merkey.html is an extremely biased but well documented list of the crazy fillings by Jeff Merkey, not by Al Petrofsky. Jeff went after Al... not vice versa. --Kebron 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Merkey, you assert that User:Al Petrofsky has ben making LEGAL threats against you? If that's the case, it should be fairly straightforward for you to demonstrate that fact. I'd be VERY interested in seeing the proof of your assertion. Please provide such proof forthwith. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His entire web site is a legal threat. He has been sending letters to Novell attempting to get them and others to initiate legal action against me.  He has sent letters to Natural Selection Foods.  He has sent letters to my customers, business associates, and others attempting to initiate legal actions as an instigator.  Here's a copy of an email my attorney sent to Natural Selections Foods Attorneys.  Please review his appraisal of Al Petrofsky after this individual tried to extort money from us:

Jeff:

I thought I would forward you the letters which Alan Petrofsky has been sending to everyone and their dog who is involved in this case together with my simple response.

Randy

-Original Message- From: Randall Spencer [mailto:rspencer@fillmorespencerlaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:20 PM To: 'Mordecai Boone' Subject: RE: Letter re: Merkey v. Delta, 2:06cv839, District of Utah

Mordecai Boone:

As you are now obviously aware, Alan Petrofsky has had a particularly heated dispute in the past with Jeff Merkey. He now calls Jeff Merkey a nut job. Alan has called my office and sent letters, etc. I am convinced that he is a nut job to use his vocabulary. At any rate, I do not believe that Petrofsky's and Jeff Merkey's legal disputes are relevant in any way to the claims of Alexj Merkey whose medical records speak, clearly independent of Jeff Merkey, of the e-coli suffering Alexj experienced. Should you have any questions regarding the dispute with Alan Petrofsky which has lead to his venomous attacks on Jeff Merkey, I will be happy to provide you with any details you need although I do not believe they are relevant.

Randy Spencer Fillmore Spencer LLC 3301 North University Ave. Provo, Utah 84604

-Original Message- From: Mordecai Boone [mailto:MBoone@gordonrees.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:59 AM To: Alan P. Petrofsky Cc: Randall K. Spencer; Bill Marler; Camille N. Johnson; Derek J. Williams Subject: RE: Letter re: Merkey v. Delta, 2:06cv839, District of Utah

Thank you.

-Original Message- From: Alan P. Petrofsky [mailto:al@petrofsky.org] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:26 PM To: Mordecai Boone Cc: Randall K. Spencer; Bill Marler; Camille N. Johnson; Derek J. Williams Subject: Letter re: Merkey v. Delta, 2:06cv839, District of Utah

Please see the attached copy of my letter dated May 3, 2007.

--- Alan P. Petrofsky 650-520-0626 3618 Alameda Apt 5 Menlo Park CA 94025


 * Please note that reputable attorneys charactrize Al Petrofsky as "A first class nut". I am not involved in this lawsuit nor is my wife anymore because we hired an attoney to represent our son. He had serious medical conditions as a result of the E. Coli.  His kidney function is still not up to 100% nd its been almost a year.  He is healthy and growing, but he had permanent damage.  NSF needs to own up to what they did to my little boy.   For Al Petrofsky to stick his nose into it and mail libel to everyone involved just to get at me is beyond EVIL.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this case is about, and I don't care to dig. In any case, I don't see how the opinion of your own attorney (presumably paid for by yourself to be your own advocate) matters, or how it is objective evidence of anything; let alone relevant to this RfC -Nyet 06:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Nyet appears to be another single-purpose account created to attack Merkey. . The individual behind them is clever enough to pretend to be an average Wikipedia editor observing the controversy.
 * User:Kebron appears to be in this category as well. Despite a flurry of recent unrelated edits, his history shows his purpose to be entirely centered around confronting Merkey.Proabivouac 07:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if I have done anything inappropriate. I am a relative newcomer to editing and commenting (although I use WP regularly and run my own wikimedia based wiki). Unlike others, I have no intention of causing disruption, promulgating legal claims, launching personal attacks, or making false accusations, nor do i have any desire to change how WP works wholesale. Feel free to take this  here if you like -Nyet 07:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Get off it, man. To all appearances you are the sockpuppet of a harasser who's in it for the long haul, smart enough to create an account and make some random edits and wait a few months before popping up again to harass Merkey. You've been on his tail since at least December of last year, so drop the "relative newcomer" junk. Seems you know how to push the community's buttons, pretending to be a random passerby, keeping cool while Merkey flails, your subtle appeal to WP:BITE. Bullshit. As my endorsements to this RC demonstrate, I'm hardly excusing Merkey's shortcomings, but I completely agree with him that you, Kebron (supposing you're not one and the same) and any similar accounts should have blocked long ago. It is your harassment machine that justifies his paranoia, and which lies at the root of so much of this disruption.Proabivouac 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about WP:BITE. I have a very thick skin; I am quite used to being misunderstood online. I am definitely new to WP editing (but obviously not wikis themselves) and I am seriously open to suggestions. Again, this is obviously not the right place for this discussion. I have responded to your other accusations where you made them, and I am always open to constructive feedback in my talk area. I have no wish to start anything with you or any other WP editor. -Nyet 08:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Our wikipedia policy strictly prohibits legal threats. If Jeffrey or any of us are engaged in off site legal disputes that is not within our remits at wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in any legal proceedings with anyone. Nor do I intend to be.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What happened to AGF Kebron? SqueakBox 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire thread is a waste of everybody's time. It has zero relevance to the issue at hand and Al Petrofsky, who has made no constructive contributions to Wikipedia, should not have initiated it, particularly using the language he has chosen here. However, this RfC (and its talk page) are not the place for the Petrofsky and Merkey to carry on their off-wiki, utterly irrelevant argument. Wikipedia is not a battleground. All we care about here is getting on with building an encyclopaedia. It is patently obvious that neither Petrofsky nor Merkey are interested in doing that; they both intend simply to use Wikipedia as a platform to further their own views. I strongly suggest that everybody else stops posting to a discussion that is clearly not having any influence on Mr. Merkey's position and which serves only to swallow time that everybody could be using to make actual improvements to articles. It seems inevitable that Mr. Merkey will soon do something which undisputably warrants re-imposing his siteban (judging by his avowed disinterest in adhering to our policies), so let's just let him get on with it and stop wasting effort on a dead-end discussion. --YFB ¿  04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you have already made up your mind. I intend to disappoint you on your last statement, you know, the one that assumes bad faith.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be very pleased if you do. It's just that, as someone who only has my experience of your behaviour at this RfC to make a judgement on (I have deliberately refrained from googling you), I am going to be very surprised. I like pleasant surprises, so please feel free to "change my mind" - it's not made up, it's just very close to resigned to defeat at present. This is mostly because every time someone has made a constructive comment at your RfC, you've dismissed it as "absurd", "irrelevant", "not on the same level", "trolling" or the action of a cabal an "other group". Although I very much hope it's an illusion, you give the appearance of being immune to reason. As I'm already breaking my own suggestion of not making any further additions to this discussion, you can consider this my last one. Go ahead and prove me wrong. --YFB ¿  04:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Needless to say, when people believe something strong enough, it can become a self-fulilling Prophecy. If of all the truths a person can embrace, if you set one truth abve all others and worship it as the center of your existence, its becomes a falsehood, and you a fanatic. Consider this (along with the fact that the person who was involved in disputes with Novell 11 years ago no longer exists -- there is a different person here today than then). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kind of like WP:CABAL. Tom Harrison Talk 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that an admission. I saw the materials on Wikipedia Review and that is the basis for my belief. An Admission by an insider is disturbing to say the least. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the link I provided to WP:CABAL and my reply to your earlier accusation above and draw your own conclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the link. In the absence of other materials I would agree with you, looking for enemies under every bush may just create them.  However, there are other materials and admissions to review, and they are somewhat disturbing to me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey's statement
There are various problems with it, but by far the most glaring is citing exposés on Wikipedia Review as if they are reliable. Why a site well known for attacking Wikipedia at every opportunity would be reliable in this context, I'm not sure. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am only referring to the materials. They describe activities that legitimate editors should not be doing, to say the least.  I don't know Tom Harrison or these other users, so I have no point of reference other than the statements made by this user at WR.  The documents speak for themselves.  Perhaps Cabal is the wrong word.  "Other Group" seems less charged as a statement. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Other Group". The materials speak for themselves. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't. The fact that many people dislike disruptive activities does not mean they are part of an organized group to get rid of people. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov's statement
I'd like to ask Merkey to explain why he finds my statement absurd. I'm truly curious. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Digging into a hole". "Getting deeper and deeper".  Deeper into what?  The truth about what goes on around here? Yeah, you are right about that -- digging around here and at Wikipedia Review is discouraging when it involves witch hunts and dogpiling.  It's like digging near a septic tank -- the deeper you dig, the worse it smells... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ? -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has been indefinitely blocked
Just as a FYI,. I do support this block, sadly. SirFozzie 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Shirahadasha
I have no idea whether Merkey really is a big contributer to the Wikimedia Foundation or not, or whether he really is being harassed by other people in the outside world, but I will for purposes of this discussion assume that both claims are true. It seems to me that having a record of contribution to the Foundation bears some analogy to the policy on administrators "occassional lapses of judgment are tolerated" -- that is, there may be some additional presumption of goodwill and willingness to believe that one is inclined to have the Foundation's interests at heart and resulting inclination towards leniency -- but whatever this additional presumption may be it applies only to isolated incidents and is totally overcome by a systematic, regular pattern. Similarly, having outside tormentors, if what Merkey says is true, does tend to make people angry and results in poor judgment, even in people who might otherwise show level-headedness and good judgment. My review of the above incidents suggests that Merkey's anger towards whatever legitimate difficulties he has experienced may be too diffuse -- too inclined to spill over into anyone who disagrees with him -- and this creates an intolerable situation for the community, including innocent and legitimate fellow editors who merely happen to disagree, that no amount of gratitude for contributions or sympathy for difficulties can overcome.

That said, I am not inclined to believe that a pemanent ban is the appropriate sanction at this time. The reason is that it may be possible for a user in a situation like Merkey, if he has the discipline to do it, to be able to focus his rage sufficiently so that it does not spill over to the community as a whole. It can be done. The odds are not great, but I recommend a course of action to see if it's followed, and a permanent ban only if it isn't. The course would include a temporary block -- perhaps a month -- to allow a cooling down period, plus a serious discussion on what the community can do to make sure Merkey is not disrupted or trolled on Wikipedia. We won't be able to do anything like what he appears to have intitially asked for. We can't give him admin powers, and we certainly can't block people on an enemies list or anything like that. But we can enforce our incivility policies and ensure he is not out-and-out trolled, and perhaps he can live with a few difficulties. We also have to enforce our policies regarding editing; the fact that he's been victimized doesn't give him a free pass to focus on his point of view here. In any event a few weeks of calm may enable him to focus more calmly on the situation and perhaps we'll find we can work something out. I'd be optimistic to think that it's even likely that such an approach will work, but it's possible that it will work, and I also don't think a one-month block followed by a review would be an excessive loss given that graduated blocks are standard Wikipedia policy and the expected normal course which should deviated from only in the most unusual circumstances such as vandalism-only accounts, which this account clearly isn't. I know User:JzG has dealt with many difficult situations in the past including situations where wikipedia editors have faced trolling IRL; Sometimes it's possible for people to seem incredibly angry in the moment, then calm down and work things out later. This might not be one of those cases, but there is enough of a possibility that it could be that I'd propose a two-step approach rather than a permanent ban now. In any event I would inclined to see his current demands, unreasonable as they are, as reactions to his current situation, in which he doubtless feels threatened and cornered, rather than having a permanent character. Let's see how things are in a few weeks. If things haven't improved, we can ban him then and won't have lost much. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing view in light of past temporary blocks and other attempted solutions when this individual edited under different usernames. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The block log for this user only shows two blocks, one on May 2 that was unblocked the same day and the present one. Has this user had other blocks in the past, either under the same or a different userid? If so would it be possible to post or link to evidence of this? If remedies short of a permanent block have been tried in the past, this would change my view. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 23:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the block logs for these IDs and IPs, that will add another 16 blocks to the 2 you know about: Gadugi, Waya Sohoni, Asgaya Gigagei, Sint Holo, PeyoteMan, 67.137.28.189, 67.137.28.187, 67.177.35.222. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, he's showing no evidence that he ever plans on editing appropriately. Like I said in my view, he's spent all his time here complaining about people who are, both truly and only allegedly, conspiring against him. People who wish to edit under policy deny allegations of misconduct, they don't just spew out reasons why people are not allowed to give those allegations. -Amarkov moo! 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My view assumes the user is engaged wholly in reacting as distinct from planning, so what he's currently doing doesn't tell us anything about "plans" or, for that matter, wishes. If we know things have been this way for a long time, then we know this reacting-out-of-anger/angry-at-everybody situation isn't temporary. Otherwise, we aren't certain. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He has not been like this for a long time, no. He has, however, accused most people who revert his edits of being trolls or sockpuppets of trolls, and he has repeatedly shown that he won't accept not getting the "right" result in issues he cares about. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this guy a sockpuppet of a previously banned user?
Am repreating the following comments previously added:


 * Look at the block logs for these IDs and IPs, that will add another 16 blocks to the 2 you know about: Gadugi, Waya Sohoni, Asgaya Gigagei, Sint Holo, PeyoteMan, 67.137.28.189, 67.137.28.187, 67.177.35.222. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we know that this is the case? I've looked up a few of these and don't see references to sockpuppet findings, suspected or confirmed. Have these gone through a sockpuppet check? Is this information established by the regular channels or is it just rumor or surmisal? If this individual has in fact previously been banned from Wikipedia as (for example) User:Sint Holo and is coming back as a sockpuppet, there should be no need for a community RfC and our time is being wasted -- the sock should just be permanently blocked under WP:SOCK, no further discussion. But reference to sockpuppetry isn't even part of the RfC evidence. Since this would cinch the matter, could you or someone link to a sock file, checkuser finding or similar hard evidence? I think it's very important to make clear one way or the other whether this is or is not a sock of a previously banned editor.  Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether I was just lucky, or if there are a lot of these sorts of things to find, but I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Gadugi without much looking, and it covers all of those addresses, as well as one I overlooked, PeyoteMan. The checkuser requests were apparently rendered moot by all of the addresses already having been blocked, as well as by several of the socks in question already having admitted to being Merkey. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, another spanking new user with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting against Jeffrey Merkey. Nothing else. That's beyond suspicious. The userboxes are a nice touch, though.Proabivouac 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you like my userboxes. I gave up on anonymous editing in large part because there are always some people around who abuse editing privileges, and I have always thought it kind of questionable for an anonymous IP to comment on such things.  Merkey is one of several accounts that were rubbing me the wrong way lately, but the others (BalanceRestored comes right to mind, the name is too ironic to forget quickly) have already been indefinitely blocked without significant dissent.  I only made it to this page because resolving the matter has dragged on for so long. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you to point us to some examples of these contributions?Proabivouac 04:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, OK, starting to smell the coffee...a few past examples include:
 * Account suspensions/Jeff Merkey
 * Requests for arbitration/67.177.35.25 vs. Fvw, Pgk, Exabit, Kebron, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Mjpieters and Redwolf24
 * Merkey acknowledged being Gadugi at Requests for arbitration/Gadugi vs. Fvw

It's clear that not all the aliases alleged were proven (for example, Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnc1 was inconclusive) but I understand this is a user with a long history of trouble and prior blocks under other user names. Am withdrawing previous proposal accordingly. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal action
Has Jeffrey Vernon Merkey truly brought legal action against wikipedia as stated on the talk page and alluded to here? If so, this entire discuss is a moot point, is it not? -Visorstuff 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No he has not. WAS 4.250 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. That is a very big accusation for Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)