Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:02, 25 May 2007

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

After returning from his indefinite block due to legal threats, JVM has engaged in repeated edit wars, has violated NPOV, and regularly fails to assume good faith.

Description

JVM is very passionate about Native American issues. However, this passion has blinded him to the obligation to avoid edit warring, not create articles designed to attack living persons, maintain a neutral point of view, maintain an encyclopedic tone, and above all, to assume good faith of other contributors.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Edit Warring

BLP violations

Encyclopedic Tone

Template:Wp-diff (my removal of his violation of ASR)
Template:Wp-diff

Failure to Assume Good Faith

Template:Wp-diff, which he wrote after Template:Wp-diff

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

--MONGO 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am very passionate about Native American issues and have had problems of assuming good faith of other contributors since I cannot determine which are trolls and which are legitimate editors since I have no access to Checkuser or other tools to validate user identities. Many of my edits have been made believing I am reverting the work of trolls and vandals here to disrupt Wikipedia.

User:Hipocrite and others have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Wikipedia, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Wikipedia in order to create fabricated evidence of edit warring and other claims to target this user for banning and other sanctions, and/or to misuse Wikipedia to post Libel and extort money. These other users are all from the SCOX message board or meat puppets who act in concert with them. The SCOX message board is an online community of Linux advocates who vigorously attack anyone they feel is a threat to the Linux or FOSS movements or business interests. They are also fundamentally the same community who frequent Groklaw.net. Many of their targets have been affected outside of Cyberspace. All of their behavior conforms to the offenses listed at WP:HARRASS.

I have had a very difficult time determining who is or is not an SCOX troll or sockpuppet since I have no access to Checkuser or other tools. This has caused me to have a very hard time assuming good faith from others, and has contributed to a lack of civility on my part in dealing with others since I do not know who is a legitimate contributor and who is a sockpuppet troll here to harras and disrupt Wikipedia. Many of the reverted edits I have done I did so because I believed they were done by sockpuppets or trolls here to simply harrass me. This does not excuse behavior, but it is evidence of mitigating circumstances.

Based on news reports in the Deseret News, Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO has received death threats and boxes of earthworms and dirt in the mail from anonymous addresses which coincide with threats and postings from these users on the SCOX message board which has led to him acquiring a concealed weapons permit and a firearm he carries with him always due to the serious nature of these threats. I have received a box of dead fish wrapped in newspaper shipped to my residence as well which also coincide with threatenting postings on the SCOX message board, as well as death threats directed against my family.

In September of 2005, SCOX message board trolls posted an article to Wikipedia libelling me, then proceeded to use the article as a platform to enshrine what Jimbo Wales characterized in statements on the article talk page as "libel, trolling, and tabloid gossip". Mr. Wales deleted the page and all associated edits after it had been posted for over a year and vigorously policed the article and semi-protected it to stop the abusive conduct of these trolls from the SCOX message board. I was banned originally for filing legal action in 2005 against the people making the death threats, and unbanned after the legal processes had been concluded. One of these trolls sent an email to my wife during this ordeal stating they would, "kill her, cut her open, pull out our unborn son, and kill him too." After reading this email, my wife fled our home and lived in hotels for several weeks, then stayed with friends in Cortez, Colorado and refused to return to our home for over two months. The disruption to my personal life by these individuals and their conduct cannot be described in words alone.

During the initial foray while I was banned by Jimbo because I had filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against SCOX members, several of these message board trolls approached me anonymously through letters, anonymous phone calls, and other means and attempted to extort money from me or demanded I resume funding of various Linux ventures and/or hired them back or gave them "salaries" in exchange to cease editing of my bio on Wikipedia or in exchange for favorable edits. I believe one of the persons demanding the money was User:Jerryg and/or sent the box of dead fish, since it was postmarked from Oregon (Portland) near where he lives. Vigilant appears to live in Nebraska and has moved to California and formerly ran the Linux Users Groups in the midwest. Most of these people have money and /or are older and have business interests and/or considerable investement or stake in Linux and FOSS companies, or are high level people involved in Linux and FOSS.

After returning to Wikipedia, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Wikipedia and were eventually blocked. The most sinister and disturbed of these trolls are Al Petrofsky and Vigilant. However, other "mission posters" also have recently emerged.

Admin User:Duk has provided a lot of help with this by blocking these trolls and mission posters and recording evidence of their conduct. User_talk:Duk/SPTA. For this he has earned my trust and appreciation and that of my family.

The SCOX message board postings reveal that virtually every edit I make on this site is reviewed and commented on in a sportscaster "blow by blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Wikipedia and marginalize me into a corner where I come under scrutiny by other editors on the site. Simply reading this message board will reveal that all of these posters are indeed stalking and harassing Wikipedia editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Wikipedia has, The Wikimedia Foundations policies, and in many cases, State and Federal Laws as well. Users like User:Hipocrite, who use the obvious controversy to promote the conduct of these people as some sort of angle to advance their own views are no better than the trolls they protect.

I propose a permanent ban on all of these users from of interacting with me on this site, including User:Hipocrite, and any other users who identify themselves as SCOX members, or who act in concert with them.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Kebron

I have been named countless times as a user from the SCOX board. I am no such thing. I have followed Mr Merkey's lawsuits against Pamela Jones of Groklaw and a list of others defendants. Put Merkey and Groklaw in Google you will get a eyefull. Mr Merkey comes into an article adds blatant POV and I am accused of being a troll. ANYONE who changes one line of anything he says is accused by Mr Merkey of being a BOT, Troll, etc from the LDS, from the SCOX board or from who knows where. I got overzeleous with one particular statement of his and was warned from an Admin and I backed off for a week now. So Mr Merkey wants me sanctioned, which is obviously a retaliation for someone else coming forward and asking for sanctions against him first. He goes out and blames everyone... just like his lawsuit. Check the list of people he wanted to sue. At any rate. I am leaving the editing of "Merkey articles" like I stated before. I simply wished to say my piece.--Kebron 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:SirFozzie

As I have said elsewhere, the kernel of this dispute has roots elsewhere. User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has had a long-standing dispute with a group of people off of Wikipedia. This has included lawsuits, filed by Mr. Merkey, and has engendered so much ill will and bad feeling that the conflict is basically never ending.

Is Mr. Merkey a target of trolls and single purpose accounts? Definitely. There are folks right now yukking it up on other boards about having provoked Mr. Merkey into a fight, yet again. Does Mr. Merkey have a right to be aggrieved? Yes. While I cannot prove or disprove any of his allegations, what I can prove is bad enough, there is a group of people who are willing to "Poke Jeffrey Merkey with sticks", just to get a response.

Does it excuse Mr Merkey's response?

No. It is somewhat understandable that after having been in a conflict with a group of people for a long time that one would start to see enemies where there are none. Mr. Merkey's people skills are.. for lack of a better word, lacking, and with his constant attempts to label everyone who disagrees with him "A SCOX Troll" or a "Sockpuppet" or "A creation of my enemies", he unfortunately feeds the very people he wants to discourage.

This conflict has become less about Wikipedia, but winning a war that cannot be won by either side. Mr. Merkey's demands were so over the top that they harmed his case. His initial demand was that he get administrator rights to block anyone who he considers one of the labels above, who posts on the same articles within 96 hours before or after he edits. That would mean if someone edited an article, then Mr. Merkey edited it FOUR DAYS later, then Mr. Merkey would have the right to not only block them, but have the right to write the blocked person's ISP, and attempt to have their Internet account pulled.

The word demand above was chosen very carefully, as Mr. Merkey seemingly has trouble editing articles and seeking consensus and following WP Policies regarding sourcing. For example, he made a highly controversial edit on an article about a living person without proper citing, and when the edit was removed, he said (paraphrasing, I do not have the edit in question memorized) "I was there, so I know it happened. It's inside information, but you will find it if you look hard enough".

In short, Mr. Merkey does have a right to ask Wikipedia admins to bar folks from harassing him on Wikipedia, but Mr. Merkey needs to work on his skills here on WP (with regards to working with others, Assuming good faith of others, and not to approach everyone so confrontationally. There is a saying my grandmother used to tell me "If you look for enemies under every branch and every tree, you will create the very enemies you are trying to find."

Users who endorse this summary:

SirFozzie 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I support and state I plan to work at improving in those areas identified by Sir Fozzie as needing improvement. After all, it's not really all that hard?[reply]
Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC) If Merkey can succesfully demonstrate that he is working on those areas, this would be moot. One major first step would be assuming my good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#::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)[reply]

Gwen Gale 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aim Here - with the (minor, but meaningful to me) caveat that, as a user of the SCOX board, admins should not automatically assume that sharing a message board with some of the trolls who are here to stalk Merkey and vehemently disagreeing with him from time to time constitutes, in itself, bad faith behaviour. I've had problems with overzealous (and overturned) admin actions relating to allegations similar to Merkey's, which they've refused to back up with specific examples of wrongdoing. --Aim Here 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
alanyst ^/talk/ 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC) With conditions. Given that he has already been banned once before for similar behavior, I wonder whether he hasn't already had his chance to demonstrate a change of approach. That said, I endorse this if specifically:[reply]
- 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;
- He makes no unsourced edits to any article, even if he promises to provide sources later;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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)[reply]

As do I. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
--YFB ¿ 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close, but adding...if you suspect someone, check their editing history...established editors are easy to descern from those that are here solely to harass or stalk you. If you are being baited, don't take the bait...just report the harassment to any administrator. The best thing, oftentimes very difficult to do, is to simply not respond at all to trolls and sockpuppets.--MONGO 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% behind Alanyst's suggestion.--Kebron 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with Alanyst's conditions and one other:
- He ceases to make claims of criminal activity by his critics. If such activity occurred, it is a matter to be brought to the attention of the police and the courts, not simply to be alleged on Wikipedia. --MediaMangler 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems balanced and supported by all sides. jbolden1517^Talk 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:JzG

SirFozzie is more than fair above. Much more than fair. I would be more blunt. Merkey: you have been banned once let back in on sufferance because you asked nicely, but you have rapidly reverted to type and resumed precisely the behaviour that got you banned originally. So: shape up or ship out. We don't mind helping keep the trolls away from you, but unless you stop the accusations and disruption right now you are going to find yourself blocked again and right out of friends. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I do not respond to threats very well. 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) [reply]

THIS is Mr Merkey.... MY WAY or I will sue... he has not changed. --Kebron 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

See, the response to this indicates the problem. People who directly accuse Merkey of doing bad things have threats immediately read into their comments, and are told that they will be recused from ever dealing with him. I was going to endorse the nicer statements, until I saw this. -Amarkov moo! 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, after some hesitation, but prompted by Jeff's response to this comment. Yes, you may have had some unpleasant experiences both on- and off-line; you may well be subject to a degree of troll attention. Unfortunately (as I might have expected you to have learnt from your professional experience) not everybody will agree with you about everything, or even disagree with you politely. Sometimes people will address you bluntly, point out actual or perceived errors and perhaps not give you the deference to which you believe you are entitled. That does not mean they are necessarily out to get you; it's just a fact of life, I'm sorry to say. One thing that is guaranteed not to help you, here or anywhere else, is responding with threats (of legal action, Arbcom, RfC, de-sysopping, "considering onself recused", banning, or anything else). If a comment, edit, revert, whatever strikes you as unfair or misplaced, take it to the relevant talk page and discuss it in an adult fashion. You have been told enough times now that your financial contributions, business associations and "friendships" with Board members do not afford you any special consideration here. The Essjay controversy, which you may have heard about, reinforced the community's position on placing importance on contributions, not qualifications. Whatever your grievances, the only way you will get on here is to play by the rules and adhere rigidly to the assumption of good faith in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary (excluding, for example, suspicions, hunches, 6th-senses). What you are currently doing, with your aggressive approach and unfulfillable demands, is disrupting the encyclopaedia. We allow anyone to edit, but not at the expense of the effective function of the project; if you act disruptively, you lose your privileges. Please, take on board what people are saying and realise that you cannot bring your off-site battles here and expect not to be blocked. --YFB ¿ 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the above, truth be told it sounds to me like he's already been given skeins of slack. Mind, all I'm hoping is that this could help him to think, calm down and adapt to this public wiki. Gwen Gale 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Mr Merkey's response proved the point beautifully. Moreschi ^Talk 10:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary

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

Dealing with Major Financial Contributors of the Foundation who Edit Wikipedia

In general, major financial contributors who edit Wikipedia should be treated the same way and with the same level of courtesy as anyone else who edits Wikipedia and they should be required to follow the same rules. These rules also apply to admins, who, by ARBCOM precedence are expected to adhere to the highest standards of civility. Financial contributors to the Foundation contribute more than their time to the project. Some of them donate or invest in Wikipedia Projects each year many times the life savings of an ordinary person. Saying this does not matter is inaccurate and a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Foundation by those who have been granted administrative or other privileges. It DOES matter. Not ony do these people donate their time, they pay for hosting costs, personnel costs, equipment, and other critical areas where the Foundation needs support, and not everyone is equal in this regard, their contributions are important as well. This does not entitle them to claim special treatment, but it does entitle them to the same high level of conduct and professional stewardship expected from any admin involved with the project. They should not be subjected to the same treatment the project reserves for troll or vandal accounts.

If you find yourself in a situation with a major contributor editing Wikipedia who is problematic, do not threaten them, argue with them, or debate with them about who is helping Wikipedia more -- from the Foundations point of view, both parties are contributors, and more so of a person donating both time and money. Some serious problems for the project may be created if an admin threatens, argues, or attempts to ban a major financial contributor from editing. These situations are best handled by more mature members of the community or of the Foundation, without ever resorting to threats or implied threats of action. It is said you cannot argue with a customer in a business setting and the same is true of a major financial contributor. Be polite. Ask polite questions about their concerns and try to listen to them, without loosing your temper. Some of the problems mishandling contributors are:

The contributor may feel they are funding a usenet project or trolling site and discontinue support.
The contributor may have significant contacts or influence in the public sector, and either intentionally or unintentionally influence other groups to withdraw support.
The contributor may have business interests or projects the Foundation has time or financial investment into that the general community is unaware of, the you may damage or destroy months or years of important relationships with a thoughtless act.
If a contributor is also in the same business space as the foundation, banning a Financial contributor or posting ban notices may interfere and harm not only their business enterprises, but the Foundation and Wikipedia Projects as a whole, with negative results for everyone involved.

If you have strong feelings about the editing of a major financial contributor, be polite, do not threaten them. Many of these people will take great offense at being threatened by admins or users since they may feel you are doing so on servers and equipment they purchased to support the project.

In summation, they should be treated the same way everyone else is treated who edits. With the same high level of civility and stewardship expected from an Admin when dealing with any editor or member of the project. And certainly not subjected to threatening language.

Users who support:

support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Users who oppose:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because there are some harsh realities here, and whether you agree or not. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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),[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. This is also a typical Mr Merkey editing session. If he gets clobbered with one point, he changes the subject hoping everyone will forget what we were just talking about a few edits before. --Kebron 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking lack of good faith. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Replace all instances of "contributor" with "Jeffrey Vernon Merkey" in the comment, and the meaning becomes clear - Nyet 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oppose - sheer balls. Moreschi ^Talk 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Dtobias

Mr. Merkey can be tough to deal with... sometimes doing useful, productive work, but other times seeming to be unmoored from reality, making questionable edits and then reacting in a hostile manner when they're questioned. It's easy for others to lose their cool when dealing with him, and I have done so myself (and, in one case, later apologized to him for assuming bad faith unwarrantedly). There are a few people who have lost their cool with him so much, and for such an extended period, that their own moorings on reality can also be questioned. A self-perpetuating state of war is the likely result of such a state of affairs, and this can be tough to untangle. However, some of the remedies Mr. Merkey has recently proposed also depart from reality; most notably, his request that people be banned for "stalking" for editing the same article within a certain length of time either after or before Merkey would require either precognition or a time machine to comply with. And, although the Yahoo SCOX board is indeed a gathering point for people who get their "jollies" out of provoking and trolling Merkey, it still seems unreasonably broad for him to insist that all editors who ever participate on that board be blocked. "Guilt by association" is not good policy. The actions of people on-wiki are what they should be judged on, not their outside message board participation. (By the way, I'm not a participant on that board, and never even heard of it until it was mentioned in the course of recent Merkey-related discussion here.)

Certainly, if anybody is doing the sorts of things he mentioned such as sending him dead fish, making death threats or blackmail demands, and so on, that is utterly despicable. It's unfair, however, to tar everybody who opposes him on Wikipedia with the same brush. Unfortunately, admin User:Duk, in his efforts to stop stalking and trolling of Merkey, is acting lopsidedly in his favor, even making a troll list that he has included me on. This doesn't seem fair to Merkey's legitimate critics.

Dan, lets ask Duk to remove you from this list since you have apologized in the past and have been working with me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by SqueakBox

Hipocrite began this rfc after stating yesterday that he would not mediate with Jeffrey [1] so I am baffled as to what he is trying to achieve here and this strikes me as a spurious Rfc from a user who appears to have issues with Jeffrey and wont address them except in the confrontative forums of first the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and now here. I think we should follow Sir Fozzie's advice [2] and close this thing down, SqueakBox 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

@@ Line 222: / Line 222: @@
 :::Terribly sorry for being so pedantic, are you saying that [[User:Tom_harrison|Tom Harrison]] is part of a group that is bent on abusing process with regards to you, in cahoots with [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]], and that Tom was the one behind this RFC? It would be good to be absolutely clear on this point. [[User:ChurchOfTheOtherGods|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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=7857] [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 09:12, 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 [http://wikipedireview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=7857] [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Support'''. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)