Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse. THIS PAGE IS NOT FOR THREADED DISCUSSION. OTHER THAN SHORT STATMENTS ON ENDORSEMENTS AND NEW COMMENT SECTIONS, ALL OPPOSITION AND DISCUSSION SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON THE TALK PAGE

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

  1. Mountain Meadows massacre
  2. Mountain Meadows massacre
  3. Mountain Meadows massacre
  4. Mountain Meadows massacre
  5. Mountain Meadows massacre (Note: this was by an IP address that is obviously Merkey. Evidence suggests he simply forgot to log in.)

BLP violations

  1. David Cornsilk
  2. David Cornsilk
  3. David Cornsilk

Encyclopedic Tone

  1. David Cornsilk (my removal of his violation of ASR)
  2. Daniel Brandt

Failure to Assume Good Faith

  1. User talk:Hipocrite, which he wrote after User talk:Duk
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:EW
  2. WP:BLP
  3. WP:ASR
  4. WP:AGF

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  3. User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. alanyst /talk/ 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. --MONGO 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Kebron 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. --The BLP violations and departures from encyclopedic tone are not acceptable.Proabivouac 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Friendly Neighbour 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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)
Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I am going to do just about the most unpopular thing I could ever do and conditionally endorse this summary, with two caveats: 1) I see no evidence, and have no reason to believe, that User:Hipocrite plays any part in this and 2) I cannot verify any of the details of Merkey's off-wiki experiences. But the overall thrust of this response, that there is a vigorous and ongoing conspiracy against Merkey on Wikipedia, is a verifiable fact. See User:Kebron, User:Jerryg, User:Nyet, User:Poindexter Propellerhead, User:Friendly Neighbour, User:Al Petrofsky, User:77.176.245.163 and I've little doubt there are more where these came from. I second Jeffrey Merkey's call for a permanent ban from Merkey-related issues against all of these users. This doesn't, of course, change the fact that some of Merkey's edits are problematic, per the substance of this complaint which I endorsed, nor can one believe that editors such as MONGO, Gwen Gale or Tom harrison (to name just a few) are part of this nefarious scheme. But (at least) five commenters here are, to all appearances, a part of it, and that is more than enough to cry foul.Proabivouac 11:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    Add User:ChurchOfTheOtherGods, who also participated in this RfA.Proabivouac 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. As above, Gwen Gale 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

  1. SirFozzie 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. 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?
  3. 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)
  4. Gwen Gale 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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: (moved to talk page) Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. --YFB ¿ 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. I am 100% behind Alanyst's suggestion.--Kebron 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. Seems balanced and supported by all sides. jbolden1517Talk 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. From observing Jeff's behaviour recently, I agree with all the above. Yes, there might be people offline stalking him and making his life hell, and I'm sorry to hear that. But that doesn't mean that everybody here is trying to do the same. I think that he has to learn to assume good faith from people on Wikipedia (out of the hundreds of thousands of active accounts, there's probably a dozen out to get him, that's a pretty small fraction), and stop seeing conspiracy in every person that disagrees with him. --Maelwys 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. SqueakBox 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  15.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. --Duk 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Proabivouac 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. DPetersontalk 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I've read most of this material and agree with this description (Outside view by SirFozzie), above. DPetersontalk 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


Users who endorse this summary

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Yep, Mr Merkey's response proved the point beautifully. Moreschi Talk 10:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Mr Merkey should understand that making baseless (at worst) and irrelevant (at best) accusations of trolling, stalking, pedophila, obscenity, death threats, blackmail, extortion, ad nauseum does nothing to help his case. His attempts to redefine WP policy and guidelines based on an individual's unverifiable "donations" and "financial" support are also extremely destructive, divisive, and unlikely to result in any consensus, since anybody reading it is left with the impression that he himself stands to gain advantage from those proposed double standards -- Nyet 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  7.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. I was reluctant to support this harshly worded summary but, upon having read Merkey's barely-coherent implosion about buying-out the foundation to get his way, I have to stongly endorse it. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Full support. This is my first edit relating to Merkey since he was unbanned. When I was asked by Jimbo Wales to archive my list of Merkey sockpuppets, I suspected he was about to return. I complied and accepted the later decision by Jimbo even as I had some trepidations about its possible consequences. I do agree Merkey has the same right to edit Wikipedia as everybody. But certainly he has no more. He should not use personal attacks against anyone he disagrees with. He should not add unsourced and biased material into articles. The problem is he very quickly returned to his old ways. The umbrella given to him for some time by one of the admins made the problem worse. If he were controlled and nudged to the bright side by an experienced admin, he could have improved. The way it was, he started to feel he is above the Wikipedia rules. We've all seen the results. I believe that Jimbo or ARBCOM should decide how to solve this problem unless Merkey starts to behave soon like a real community member. -Friendly Neighbour 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. How on earth did a "permanent block" get turned into an invitation back, for Merkey to continue disruption of content articles?! LotLE×talk 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Exactly my thoughts. Ral315 » 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support. Merkey's comment below is higly disruptive, and very much in line with his long-standing attitude of complete disrespect towards other community efforts. Sergio Ballestrero 11:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Tom Harrison Talk 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Per Amarkov, Fluri.Proabivouac 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second comment by JVM

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:

  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)

[edit] 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. *Dan T.* 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. SirFozzie 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. --YFB ¿ 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mangoe 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Jerry (Talk) 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  • Support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree At this point, Mediation and AbCom may be the only solutions. DPetersontalk 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial contributors

The opposition to Merkey's comment above was "refactored" out of existence, so to clarify unambiguously:

Financial contributions to the Foundation confer and imply no special privileges. No donation confers any degree of immunity from any policy or guideline. The actions of editors on Wikipedia is divorced from their contributions, if such exist, to the foundation. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. *Dan T.* 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. YFB ¿ 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Aim Here 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gwen Gale 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Proabivouac 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Endorse. Doubly so for anybody claiming they made an "anonymous" contribution. If they wanted special consideration (and the Foundation decides privileges should be conferred based on donations), they should donate non-anonymously. - Nyet 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Tom Harrison Talk 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Duh. If you contribute monetarily to Wikipedia, you should know enough about it to determine that you won't get special privileges. And it's definitely not a good idea to change this, or we'll get a bunch of people paying a bit to avoid a block for whatever behavior they plan on doing. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. I've honestly tried to stay out of this whole debacle this time around, but how can one not endorse this. If Wikipedia is ever going to be taken seriously, this has got to be one of the rules of the land. --Jerry (Talk) 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Somewhat support but like with any business if someone comes along with specialist knowledge and money there is nothing to stop the well intentioned user from being nice and making a special effort to welcome the potential invester, and to make a special effort to help said users become a valuable wikipedian, SqueakBox 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Endorse. -Friendly Neighbour 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Obviously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. This RfC may be closed (closing soon?) but I strongly endorse the above sentiment. R. Baley 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm brand spanking new to the issue here, but whole heartedly endorse this summary. —Gaff ταλκ 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users who believe this entire RFC was Frivolous

RFC was filed by a user who refused mediation. Subsequently, the RFC has undergone perpetual editing, blanking, and other actions by SCOX sockpuppets and SCOX posters and members of the initiators "Other Group". General outcome was "yes" stalkers and trolls can be blocked. Evidence at Wikipedia Review and comments and admissions by various posters indicates this RFC was an Abuse of Process attempt by a "Other Group" or outside group who routinely disrupt Wikipedia by "playing the system" to violate WP:HARRASS. Since the Rfc, the submitter has reverted virtually every edit made by the target of the dispute, the majority of edits by the initiator which have drawn criticism from legitimate editors, including nominating an article for deletion involved in an ongoing compromise discussion with other editors. This RFC was frivilous and abuse of process by an outside This "Other Group" of editors and admins involved in a POV pushing which was "outed" on Wikipedia Review as a mill that disrupts Wikipedia's internal processes.

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Time to close, SqueakBox 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ourside view by Amarkov

Merkey is just digging himself a deeper hole now. Instead of complaining loudly that the RfC is frivolous, trolls are attacking him, the Cabal is against him, and similar things, he should be demonstrating that he has not in fact been disruptive. That he hasn't actually done so indicates to me that he knows very well that his actions are disruptive, and doesn't care. 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. YFB ¿ 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Careful Jeff... I'm way over 40... --Jerry (Talk) 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Gwen Gale 06:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Motion to close

It is transparent that no amount of comment will change anything in this case. I have no interest in pursuing Arbitration. There are scores of admins, some with substantial tenure commenting on this RFC, all in one direction. Further comment is no longer helpful. The lack of testicular fortitude by some of our long term administrators, however, is distressing.

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close...this is now a troll magnet anyway.--MONGO 06:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. I believe that by now everyone has more info on the problem than (s)he needs. -Friendly Neighbour 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. Nothing productive is happening here. --YFB ¿ 06:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close, if only to shut down the talk page.Proabivouac 06:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Close and ritually wash my hands of the whole thing. SirFozzie 07:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Close as above, this is for WP's leadership to decide. Gwen Gale 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strongly agree time to close and that this case should not be taken to arbcom, not sure what testicular fortitude is but it sounds a bit macho for my (British) liking, SqueakBox 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. I believe that an administrator has blocked the subject of this RfC indefinitely, which would seem to render further comments on this page moot at least unless and until the block is lifted. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. I agree that further comment is unnecessary at this time. Based on this RfC I have indeed blocked the user, with no set expiry time. When we have some indication that he is prepared to address the issues raised above, rather than asserting some non-existent overarching principle in order to ignore them, then he can be unblocked. Whether that happens or not, this RfC has now run its course and I endorse closure. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. He's been blocked; there's really no point in continuing to discuss why he should be sanctioned. -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Indeed the only discussion is how he should be unblocked, and this may not be the time or place, SqueakBox 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.