User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive3

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 .

What is consideration? Consideration is a term in contract law that requires something in exchange for goods or services. Consideration can be money, privileges, or services traded for other goods and services. It is a fundamental element of trade. In the sense referred to in the above bounty offer to raise money for the Foundation, it is requiring "someone do "X" or "Y" or accept some other role in exchange for rights to edit and to be left alone to do so on the English Wikipedia". This is a fundamental violation of the representations made to the General Public by the Foundation in exchange for the right to enjoy non-profit status and receive financial contributions from the Public tax-free in that Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone can Edit. No consideration is required. You do not have to be subjected to Ban Proceedings, agreement to be mentored, or any other disruptive activity because the Wikimedia Foundation has stated to the General Public anyone can edit the free encyclopedia and has taken money from thousands of people based upon these representations. This message is important and vital to the growth of Wikipedia as an ongoing concern. Not growth of the website, but financial and organizational growth. If you are confronted with a group of people who demand something from you in exchange for the free and easy rights promised by the Foundation, such as joining their cabal, group, or you feel trapped or backed into a corner, it may be that this basic principle is not being followed.

So does this mean that you're going to stop asking admins to block, ban, or restrict the trolls who stalk you in this site? After all, "anyone can edit" must include them, too. *Dan T.* 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No. because they types of activities violate the law. See [1]. That is an interesting wiki project where they based bans and blocks on violations of the law and a short list of "commandments" rather than concensus or dogpiling and 10,000+ pages of rules and guildelines. Although not perfect, this project seems to be very successful and growing. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Problems

Jeffrey, please send me email via Special:emailuser/JzG. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I typically do not engage people off wiki. Please state your concerns here in the open so we can discuss. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to off wiki attacks

Please do not link to nonsense off wiki attacks as you did here. I adjusted the link so it's dead, please do not "fix" it.--MONGO 11:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a Wikipedia page comment that had been deleted. It is still present on Wikipedia and I have reviewed it already. I do agree that its not necessary to have it in the body of the article as the evidence it presents has already been verified elsewhere. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Verification with Reliable Sources

Ok, my understanding of Wikipedia policy is a bit different. Although WP:NPOV would make it appropriate to mention wherever other Cherokee groups are mentioned that they are not federally recognized nor recognized by Cherokee Nation Members, I read WP:RS and WP:V as saying that any reputable published source talking about Cherokee is eligible to be a source for this article, whether the activity described is legal or not. This is because there isn't consensus that the word Cherokee refers only to federally recognized bands, but rather there are some who believe that it refers to people who self-identify as Cherokee as well. Garroutte is a reference that mentions this view. I'm not sure how to resolve this difference. Here's what I'm reading:

Reliable Source: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Verification:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Those are the key sections from the relevant guideline and policy. Let me know if you see in those lines or elsewhere in the policy articles something that supports your view. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to press this, JMV, especially as you are vacationing (or soon to be), but I was wondering if you could answer my question above? I've recopied it to this section. To reiterate, Wikipedia policy defines verification based on reliable third-party sources, and defines reliable sources as those which are credibly published with a reliable publication process by authoritative and trustworthy authors. Do you understand the policies differently from this? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You (JMV) have given a sort of answer before, most recently at your Talk:Cherokee Heritage Groups article. What you have said is that you believe only federal governments and members of federally recognized Cherokee tribes can say things about Cherokee. You have also talked about the legal ramifications of articles talking about Cherokee without using these as there only sources. I believe that if Wikipedia is citing a reputable source (for instance, The Washington Post or the University of Nebraska Press), you are better off asking the source (through legal means if necessary) to publish a retraction. For us to make the best encyclopedia we can, we have to talk about a subject with all the breadth that reputable sources use when they talk about the subject.

If you honestly believe that Wikipedia should not use these sources in this case, I believe our next step, based on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, is to seek a third opinion or perhaps Request for comment on an article. I understand you are, as a user, currently facing an RfC. As you know, an RfC on an article is slightly different, and I am open to either as a next step. You have said that you are willing to take something like this "to ARBCOM." As a first step, it is polite to outside parties for us to agree precisely what are dispute is. If nothing else, consider this an attempt at that. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is the issue here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims require exceptional sources - If they claim they are Cherokee, they need exceptional sources. their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject - Only the United States or the Cherokee People who are federally recognized are trustworthy (and lawfully delegated by the People of the United States through their representatives in Congress) to verify who is or is not Cherokee since they have accurate and verifiable rolls and processes which exceed the standards of Wikipedia. The only exception are WP:V materials which can trace an individual to a known historical Cherokee Figure. In the case of "groups" if they are not Federally recognized they cannot be verified unless there are WP:V sources that can trace the current group to a historical verifiable and trustworthy Indian Roll. Are there other Rolls, Yes -- The Georgia Cherokee Roll is one. There are several others -- these are reliable sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move on to one of WP's dispute resolution methods, do you have a preference between a third opinion and an RFC? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let's send a letter to the BIA as a third party and ask their input on the matter. I would like to include members of the Foundation in the discussion, since the foundation may potentially be blacklisted from participating in Federally funding from government agencies, groups, or programs if we do not adhere to WP:V. Let's discuss it with the Foundation and the BIA. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps you are not familiar with Wikipedias dispute resolution. We have a group of editors who do a good job of helping resolve disputes, and third opinions are done through there. If we still disagree and you wish to take things beyond that, we can go on, with the arbitration committee being the final step (before Jimbo, I guess). If you wish to take a dispute outside of Wikipedia, you may do so. However I feel it would be more appropriate to try methods that Wikipedia has set up for this type of thing first. Also, I intend on continuing this discussion until I am corrected, or until the type of material I have suggested is allowed on this page without your reversion. With that in mind, do you think it would be ok if we move this discussion to your or to my talk page? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved this to your talk page. My reasoning is that your comment above seems to be a sort of response, that you protest the existence of Wikipedia bodies which impede the idea of it being "free for anybody to edit". I'm assuming you've read the [Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws], which reads:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

As the existence and creation of these bodies has been in order to empower people to collect and develop their educational content with certain controls and limits on the types of edits that can be made. When editors are generally seen as disruptive to this process, I don't see the violation of the bylaws when other editors wish to limit the disruptive editors. I believe that the responsibility of the non-profit is to follow the by-laws under which it was given its status. If you really feel that you our dispute should not go through any process listed at dispute resolution, again, let me know, and we'll see what we can do. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting parallel. If I understand correctly what you are saying, you wish to include opinions from college professors and other non-indians and other groups which do not have either the ability or resources to verify or the authority to recognize tribes or indians based upon your opinions with non-authoritative sources. I guess we have gotten to the point at the end of the road. Are you affiliated with any of these groups claiming to be Cherokee who are not recognized? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically in concordance with my interpretation of verification with reliable sources, which I wish to follow. I'd like to know if you'd like to go to one of the dispute resolution processes offered to work out our differences. I'd prefer seeking a third opinion, but I'm open to anything. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In order for me to agree with you on a best approach, I need to verify that WP:COI is not involved here. Are you affiliated with any of these groups claiming to be Cherokee who are not recognized? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering the first time. No, I'm not affiliated with any of these groups. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Rfc requires two mediation attempts that have failed. We could attempt mediation if this is your desire. WP:V challenges need adjudication in this matter regarding indian tribes anyway. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

osiyo! dohitsu.

Mediation

Great, would you like to initiate mediation or should I? Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither actually. I would like for you to not put materials into the article that fail WP:V but I cannot stop you and it doesn't matter whether it is or is not put into the article because over time, 100 people will revert it and change it around until its an ad for the Southern Cherokee Nation again, so do whatever you want. You know my views on the matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, mediation requires "a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives." If you are not interested in this, you are right that it is not the right next step. But the situation is that I wish to edit the article in a certain way as I discussed on the talk page, and you have asked that I not do so, and have stated that you will revert such edits. In this position, I must seek consensus, which I did, and from which what little response we got was in general support of my line of editing. As you continued to disagree and state the intention to revert, I have tried to pin down where exactly our disagreements lie. Having done so above, I am willing to resolve this dispute. If you do not wish to mutually agree on some sort of dispute resolution, let me know, and I will look into what other options there are. If you wish to go through mediation, a third opinion, or any other method, also let me know. Feel free to start the process or I can do so. Thanks again, Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain another way. There is no "right way" here. We disagree, that's all. If you feel compelled to put that material into the article, I will not stop you. I have stated my concerns but this is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. The materials you want to put in are the same wannabee claims the Cherokee people have to deal with all the time. The materials are junk. They esspouse the false "I woke up this morning and now I am Cherokee, I do not speak the language, know the culture, was raised in it, know any Cherokee's, can prove it, but I believe it. I can also go and edit Wikipedia and become War Chief Sir Alan McilWraith of the Cherokees (Alan Mcilwraith). I can even setup a fake website and tribe and scam money from the stupid on the Internet." By all means proceed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Wikipedia's slogan is not its mission statement. I will take your advice and edit the article freely. I suppose that is all I can do, if you do not wish to resolve our dispute. Please let me know if you ever have anything you wish to discuss with me, or if there is anything I can help you with. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not place materials about the Southern Cherokee Nation into the article again. They are not a Federally Recognized Cherokee Tribe, they make false claims they are on their website which contradicts the US and BIA statements on who is recognized. I have removed these materials as failing WP:V. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#<sigh> Merkey's edit warring again, SqueakBox 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am certain it's those cabal members who filed for their failed CSN and RFC again. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in edit warring, so given your recent edits, I have decided to mention our dispute at the AN/I SqueakBox mentioned. I don't think the AB/I is the place for us to continue our dispute, but I thought I'd let you know, so you can continue to monitor the discussion their in case anything I said (or others say) is especially unfair and egregious. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, as Squeak said, it was at the AN/I. Now I've brough it to the current RfC (per Uncle G's suggestion). Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have no desire to go to mediation with you is that you have indicated you will continue to place materials which fail WP:V into the article and despite my best efforts at discussion about the current issues with Federal Recognition. This leads to me to believe you will continue to assert that non-indians are indians, and you also refuse to work with me on creating Cherokee Heritage Groups article. Your very first edits reinserted materials about the Southern Cherokee Nation, which has been removed and discussed over and over again. At this point, AGF aside, I have to believe you are either affiliated with this group or another group who makes false claims they are something they are not based upon your bull headed inssitence and refusal to compromise on these issues. This is the project anyone can edit, and you can edit, but your edits will be subjected to merciless review by others, changes, and possible removal if they fail sources. You cannot use the framework of Wikipedia policies to enshrine your views or beliefs about who or Cherokee any more than I can, however, I and others can bring to bear sources and materials which indicate who is or is not Indian based on the Federal Governments policies and United States Law. I see no point in going to mediation with someone who is merely arguing about content. Content disputes are not solvable with Mediation. They are solved by following policies on reliable sources and verifiable sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, and I am no more interested in mediation than you are, so long as you are willing to continue our dialog. If my understanding is wrong, rest assured that I have plenty of other interests on Wikipedia where I enjoy editing. And as for your Heritage article, I've expressed my views on the type of article I'm interested in, which you've told me is not the type of thing you will allow. In order to avoid EW, I didn't make any edits there, and I didn't make any substantial edits to Cherokee during our discussion until you asked me to. Anyway, I know I've asked a couple times before, but I'd really like an answer to my question about the wikipedia basis of your interpretation of policy. Here is the question (copied from your own archives).

Ok, my understanding of Wikipedia policy is a bit different. Although WP:NPOV would make it appropriate to mention wherever other Cherokee groups are mentioned that they are not federally recognized nor recognized by Cherokee Nation Members, I read WP:RS and WP:V as saying that any reputable published source talking about Cherokee is eligible to be a source for this article, whether the activity described is legal or not. This is because there isn't consensus that the word Cherokee refers only to federally recognized bands, but rather there are some who believe that it refers to people who self-identify as Cherokee as well. Garroutte is a reference that mentions this view. I'm not sure how to resolve this difference. Here's what I'm reading:

Reliable Source: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Verification:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Those are the key sections from the relevant guideline and policy. Let me know if you see in those lines or elsewhere in the policy articles something that supports your view. As this is the dispute as I outlined, you can see that it is not content but interpretation of policy. Hopefully, you can explain to me your thinking. Thanks again. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep citing that but are not discussing it or following it in this particular area. OK? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please explain your reasoning. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bye

FYI - I intend to have nothing to do with you anymore. I have withdrawn my AFD of your article, moved to close the RFC, deleted my userspace pages about you and self-reverted my reverts of your content additions. Have a wonderful life. Please don't respond to this message. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rights

You have exactly two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave. No other rights exist, it has never been any different and it probably never will be. Just so you know.

You are wrong there. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing. This is for the purpose of restricting your disruption to a single locus, this talk page. We have, I am afraid, had more than enough of your posturing and forum shopping, and it is time for you to realise that when a large number of people tell you that you are wrong, it is probably because you are wrong.

18 year olds who live in their mom's basement and who are taking a free ride off my money and chat room trolls who talk about inappropriate topics don't tell me when I am right or wrong. In fact, no such concept exists on this site. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are aware of the community's views on Wikilawyering and legalese posturing.

community == trolls. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have invited further input by whoever is interested, at this talk page, in an effort to see if we can't find some way of helping you, but I'm afraid that your input to talk and project space outside of here is just making things worse for

You have threatened others or implied threats if they speak out. You just blocked me for posting a proposed guideline -- because it challenges your power base.

You might want to reconsider or reword that last bit, Jeff, it looks an awful lot like a threat of actual physical harm being visited on a moderator.

I removed it. I do get going. No I was referring to the Revolutionary War and the oppression of England that spawned the free society we enjoy.  :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

People have been very patient in explaining the problem, you do not seem to be listening - or maybe you just don't get it. Those of us who have in the past been subject to vicious trolling and harassment do understand that you have a problem with some people, and we are not lacking sympathy or willingness to try to protect you from that trolling, but that's not what you are asking as far as I can tell, you are making demands ot be allowed to pursue a problematic style of editing and interpersonal interaction, and I'm afraid we can't have that.

I can see how much sympathy is coming from you.

Please do make some effort to think of a way in which we can resolve the problem rather than either escalating it or pretending it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is we and what are you asking for? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw the Noticeboard and the comments from all the trolls and strong arm groups. This block violates just about every assurance from the Foundation. It also interferes with my investments. You mention resolving this problem. Elaborate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, donations are not, and never have been, investments. Lexicon (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Investements in US Based companies based upon representations made by the Foundation (along with donations) are investments. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be completely clear here: you donated to a non-profit. You get no guarantees as a result, implied or explicit. You are not an investor, you are a financial supporter, as are many of us. No contracts, no investment, no implied covenants, no contracts, no guarantees, no safe passage, no free pass. All you get is all any of us get: a chance to contribute, provided you can keep within the rules and play nice with the other kids. I think you know this, really.

I got a laugh out of the comments about kicking the brits out, though - like I didn't know about the War of Independence! Did you know that I am descended from John André's brother? We brits are not historically ignorant, y'know, my school was 800 years old at the time of the War of Independence and our second most famous old boy, Nicholas Breakspear, was 600 years dead by then. But enough banter.

I see your talk page is now protected, I'm not going to unprotect it since that will also stop the trolls from posting here but it does impede any attempts at resolving this. I'd like to invite you again to contact me via email to see if we can't get this problem de-escalated, or you might want to talk to Danny as I understand you and he get on OK. My agenda is pretty simple: I'd like you to be able to edit, but only if you can play by the rules (and by this I mean the rules as interpreted by the admin community, as applied to everybody, within the limits of human fallibility). I am content to run interference and protect you, as best I can, from trolls. I know there are people who bear malice towards you. I am not one of them. There are other people who are of the same mind as me, I don't pretend to act as a spokesman for anyone, this is just me trying to fix a problem you have. But I can't fix it as long as you pretend it's a problem everyone else has, because it isn't. I know you are sincere, I know you are passionate about your subject - WP:TIGERS could have been written especially with you in mind, in some respects - and there are a number of us who bear you no malice whatsoever even while groaning out loud every time you stuff your foot another inch into your mouth. So please feel free to contact me at Special:Emailuser/JzG. Focus on this thought: we want to help you work with the community. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Locus Editing Blocked

I just attempted to create pages off my Talk page in order to resume my work and right to edit as promised by the Foundation. i.e. User_Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Cherokee and it says I cannot create local pages. This is a breach of the covenants made with me by the Foundation. If others wish to vet articles, thats ok, since this is not a breach of the implied covenants with the Foundation. It is a breach if I am not allowed to edit articles or make local copies of the same. Please correct. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this page, as part of the ongoing effort to help Mr. Merkey to contribute to the project. Please be aware that any trolling on here will be dealt with ruthlessly. Do not bring your external battles to Wikipedia, we have quite enough of our own thank you very much. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Requested

I have read through all of the various postings on WP:ANI regarding this entire affair. Given that the structure of the Wikipedia Community may have a hard time just blocking trolls, blocking their target is hardly fair either. I posted the Wikipedia:Right To Edit language as an attempt to increase public support for Wikipedia based upon a lot of public criticism I have reviewed about the project during my travels attempting to raise money and support for the Foundation. I am not going to argue the merits of my proposals, pro or con, other than to say my intent was to create a more open environment for fundraising for the Foundation. Since the community will oppose and block anyone even making such suggestions, I feel it is better to simply leave the Foundation to its own efforts without me clouding it up. In order for me to edit like anyone else on this site, the following changes have been made in my personal affairs. I think Guy Chapman was really trying to help here, but he needs to understand just how far out on a limb he really is with all this. I do appreciate his kind and thoughful emails and dialouge with me on this matter. The following actions have been taken:

• 1. I have directed my accountants to discontinue all donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, proposed transfers, profit sharing plans, educational trusts from large contributors which were in process, or other projects which would cloud the issue of me being treated the same way anyone else is on this site. I had raised with Brad Patricks knowledge over $10,000,000.00 in committments to be dispursed to the Foundation beginning in 2008 for venture funding of spin off projects which were to be offered to major contributors as a venture fund for Foundation related efforts. These monies are being returned and the trusts dissolved. I discussed with the contributors this morning. We cannot in good faith support an organization or project with conflciting rules and policies "anyone can edit" and then users can be blocked for making suggestions for securing rights for editors to work in more productive and less chaotic environment. There are significant legal liabilities for me personally to support such an effort since I cannot control the Wikipedia Community and it appears neither can the Foundation. Given these facts, the legal risks are too great based upon the current operational nature of this community. I want to edit, not get involved in drama and intrigue with trolls.

• 2. WMG will continue to preserve and use the Wikipedia content and sell appliances. Development will also continue for translation technology for MediaWiki. We are however, going to approach other MediaWiki efforts, such as Citizendium, Conservapedia, and other efforts, including a new company formed with the Noorda's this week. Guy had suggested I talk to Danny Wool. Danny and I were already talking on the cellphone about this mess when I was blocked, so those lines of communication are and have remained open. Given these facts, I have directed WMG to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve its business and protect my invstements from the tortious interference of others as a condition of fiduciary duty to the company. I am not involved in any legal issues with anyone nor intend to be, and I am only a board member of WMG, so any actions the company takes are taken by the company and not me, if indeed things get so bad I have to go this route. The general idea here is to remove any impediments for me to edit just like anyone else. These steps remove those artificial hurdles.

• 3. I am interested in Native American Articles, not running the Foundation, buying it, running Wikipedia, being an admin, or anything else. Just to be an editor people can trust. Blocking me and leaving the trolls is exactly that I expect to happen here because this communities princicples need an overhaul. It's not my problem, my job, or my responsibility to fix it. I just want to edit.

Guy compares me to a tiger. Alpha-Male is a more appropriate description. When a caged tiger is subjected to torture, electric shocks, poked with torches, spears, and firebrands, even a kindly zoo keeper coming to feed the tiger or dresss his wounds is likely to be torn limb from limb by the tiger if its in an agitated state. I think the same is tru of any human being subjected to the unbridled harassment I have been.

Unblock requested I would like to edit articles. If for nothing else to allow the community to study this phenomena of the trolls and stalkers targeting me to better understand policies for dealing with this effectively.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I will bring your unblock request to the administrators' noticeboard (WP:ANI) for review and consensus. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have misread your point #1, so I wanted to ask you to clarify. Are you stating that if unblocked, you are no longer going to involve yourself is efforts to change the Wikipedia community, policies, guidelines, etc and will instead focus on article edits?--Isotope23 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. I will focus on becoming a trusted editor in the area of Native American articles and content. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Misperceptions on ANI

I have monitored the discussions on WP:ANI. There seems t o be an ongoing debate and claims "He who has the gold rules." While this statement is totally true in the real world, it is not true here. I am withdrawing financial support because this community has clearly stated that being a contributor and being involved with the Foundation is an impediment to editing, and it does not matter. This is what you people said you wanted -- money not being rubbed in your faces. Well, guess what, its not in your face anymore. As I said previously, I cannot be involved in funding this community because no one runs it. You guys could post ban notices on a talk page or user page of one of our customers and cause a lot of grief. I also am not going to run interference with the Foundation on issues between WMG and this community any longer. I just want to edit and be treated like everyone else. So please stop being upset and making mountains out of molehills on this topic. You said this is what you wanted. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have been reading things, this is not the issue. In your various discussions, you continuously bring up the fact that you have donated X amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation, and others in the discussion feel that you are attempting to gain ground by saying that your money has assisted the project. You can be treated like a normal editor if you donate or if you don't. One thing has nothing to do with the other. You can donate to the Foundation and not edit, you can donate to the Foundation and edit, you can not donate and not edit, or you can just edit. No one in any of these "classes" is any better than the others. Right now, you have to see that others feel that you have been disruptive to the project, without devolving into calling others "SCOX trolls" or "Unix trolls" or whatever it was. Take their constructive criticism and see how you can improve yourself on the English Wikipedia in your mannerisms and editting styles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They said no such thing (that "being a contributor... is an impediment to editing"). Anything anybody may have said about not "rubbing money in faces" simply meant that, whatever you might or might not contribute to the foundation shouldn't be used by you (or anybody else) as a basis for demanding or expecting special treatment of any sort. You have yourself said that people who contribute shouldn't get special treatment, but then you follow it by paradoxically saying how contributors should be treated with kid gloves and never banned (regardless of their behavior) because that could cause a "lot of grief". *Dan T.* 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, are you willing to adhere to the conditions I proposed at your RfC? I'll copy them here for your convenience:

• 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.

Your sincere acceptance of these terms would be necessary for me, at least, to be open to your unblocking. If you object to any of the conditions, please be specific about which ones and why so I and others can understand your viewpoint better. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

rejected. I am a volunteer here. To the extent existing policies address these issues, I will adhere to those, and not any list of demands from any individual. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a bit, though - the first is WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; the second is WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS; the third is WP:CIVIL again; the fourth is WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V; the fifth is WP:DE and probably WP:POINT. So although the wording is unhelpful, the underlying premises are sound. Let me rephrase them.

Will you please undertake to follow these guidelines:

• To restrict your edits to that which can be verified from reliable sources, and attribute them as such;
• To restrict yourself, in debate, to the subject matter of articles, rather than personalising disputes;
• To take complaints over editor conduct to the right place, in a calm and civil fashion, rather than escalating them yourself on the talk page or through legal threats, implied, actual or rhetorical;
• To agree to allow independent parties to assess the relative merits of competing edits, trough the dispute resolution process.

If you are up for this, I will attempt to hold all others to the same standards, and I will have some help in doing that. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Admissions

To the extent I have caused any problems related to poor handling of trolls and others on the site, I sincerely apologize to the community. To the extent I have attempted to direct or influence policies on the site, either through the Foundation or interactions with others, I apologize to the community and will refrain from any such attempts in the future. To the extent my status as a large anonymous Financial Contributor to the Foundation has influenced others interactions, I apologize to the community for such posturing and have removed any such artificial hurdles in the future. I will no longer donate one cent to the Foundation. My only contributions will be to enhance Native American Articles and content related to the same. Perhaps if we all try to make the best content possible, Google or Yahoo will follow through with their attempts to acquire the Foundation and create a better environment here for people to work -- this is not my problem. Any funding of future Wikipedia type projects will be done elsewhere since these activities appear to only create more impediments to me editing here. I do not want to control Wikipedia, the Foundation, make policies, fix the community or the like. Since there now exists no genuine issue of fact, I respectfully request I be unblocked. Since I have removed all of these artificial hurdles, then there is no reason I cannot be treated equally with other qualified and competent editors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I am going to put on my contributor hat one last time before I take it off forever on this site. These statements are for educational purposes for this community. You cannot win an argument with a contributor or donor any more than you can win an argument with a customer in the real world. When you win your arugments through dogpiling, threatening them, blocking them, trying to convince them of your viewpoints, then you have lost. The same principals also apply to any admin who blocks a user for purely idealogical reasons. If you have to block someone on Wikipedia as an admin, you have failed in some way. You have failed to listen to them, understand their views, or failed to respect their humanity. When you can resolve issues without blocking, then you are a true leader and worthy of the trust placed in your role by the community and the Foundation. An Admin with too many blocks of legitimate editors is a poor admin. If this were a company dealing with customers, a lot of you folks would probably get fired because of this. Please do not take this as an attack, but sincere advice and food for thought from an old man who wants very much for all of you to succeed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are pretty correct in that last statement. Of course there are vandals who should be blocked but there are far too many good faith users indefinitely blocked from the site for my liking, you and Daniel Brant being 2 good examples. The one word I would like to see used more here is professionalism. All the best, SqueakBox 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Fill in here and remove no wiki to officiallly request to be unblocked when you are ready and willing to comply with all policies and will simply ignore the trolls.}} Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will am ready and willing to comply with all policies and will simply ignore the trolls (or post their disruption to WP:ANI and allow the administrators to study the phenomena and addres it.)

Decline reason:

I don't know about other admins, but I honestly don't believe you. I don't don't believe that you will cease your disruption or that you fully understand why you are blocked and what you have done wrong. — -- John Reaves (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand I was blocked for posting a proposed policy that the community disagreed with. Since only a single editor created and was editing the proposal (and anyone else who could have chimed in and were invited to do so did) this does not appear to be disruptive. The block appears to have been for idealogical reasons and disagreements about the principles it contained. For an admin to state someone is a liar, they do not believe them is 1) unprofessional and 2) failing to WP:AGF. If you feel my perceptions of the events are incorrect, please feel free to explain to me why you feel this was disruptive. I have already stated I will no longer try to make policy on Wikipedia or through the Foundation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question about the donations page on ANI, I am in the anonymous donors category and I broke it up into multiple donations and they came from the WMG paypal account. There will be no more donations from me or WMG since our board has stated that will not fund any groups who have unclear public statements of purpose or who create usenet-style forums with no accountability to their parent organizations. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been curious about this since you posted your proposed policy and I posted it on the talk page of it as well (now deleted). What policy of the Foundation specifically says that we have to let everyone edit all the time? (Bear in mind that the Main page of Wikipedia is not Foundation policy.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page. It is a talk page, and having it in a non English script is seemingly frustrating its purpose. Any admin should feel free to unprotect once the communication problem is sorted.--Doc^g 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's response

I have removed all the trolltime dialouge from this page in order to work on Legitimate Materials. Please do not replace these materials here, as I have no way to archive my talk page. Any other use is welcome to archive my talk page for me. Since it is highly unlikely few users here speak Cherokee, I will perform my editing in it and translate it back into English when I am able to store articles off my talk page. I strongly believe that if I edit in Cherokee, it becomes very unlikely my postings will offend anyone here or cause any disruption. If someone wants to dialouge with me, then they should do so in Cherokee. English will not be responded to on this talk page unless prefaced with "We apologize, Jeff." Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"We apologize, Jeff."

Though I've no need to apologize. I put myself on the line to stop the trolling against you, I'm certain you must have seen this on WP:AN.

Basically, there are two seperate issues here: 1) the trolls 2) the community. It's not true, as you'd concluded, that Community=trolls...but it is true that the community was infested with anti-Merkey trolls, and lots of them. And we didn't do a great job - in fact we did a horrible job - of getting rid of them, not because any of us wanted you to be harassed, but because the stalkers were savvy enough to realize how to trick the community and pretend to be normal editors.

JzG, Newyorkbrad and others are putting a stop to this madness. Gwen Gale and I conditionally endorsed your RfC summary. As a Wikipedia editor and as human being, I was sickened by what I saw at SCOX, and at what you've had to endure here, and I'm not alone.

The trouble on your end (besides the financial stuff which I don't know the story behind, so can't address) has been that you've failed to distinguish between the trolls and everyone else. Legitimate editors have had some specific complaints about some of your edits. That's not an insurmountable thing - for example, I was RfC'd, and I'm now proud to count the person who filed it among my colleagues - we talked, I listened to him, he listened to me, and we both learned something. (Of course, my RfC wasn't filled with attack SPA's - I counted at least six in yours.) Editors have complaints about one another's edits all the time; it really isn't a big deal and it doesn't generally get anyone blocked or banned.

What does get people blocked and banned is ignoring these complaints and telling everyone that their opinion doesn't matter. There are definitely some bad actors around here, some even enoying positions of authority, but most people are pretty fair and pretty cool. JzG is one of them, Tom harrison another, Gwen Gale another...the list is too long to complete.

I have an interest in Native American peoples, languages and cultures, and I strongly believe that some representation here is a very good thing. I also strongly believe that Wikipedia will benefit from the involvement of older, more accomplished editors willing to participate using their real world identities. So, I want you to stick around, but if and only if you will follow the rules, and the spirit underlying them, which is that we're a community, we talk things out, we respect one another and work together towards a common goal. The community has failed you and our own principles by allowing you to be stalked and harassed. "We apologize, Jeff." Though I don't always have the time I would like to contribute, when I'm around, I promise to do my utmost to prevent this from reoccuring.

Okay, my advice is this: look at the original complaints in the RfC, which I endorsed not because I'm out to get you (for I'm not), but because they're valid. Think about them and address them directly, without getting defensive. You don't have to apologize, actually, and aren't being asked to. An honest, collegial conversation is all that's expected, and when it starts, and as long as it continues, I'm pretty certain that you'll be welcomed back.Proabivouac 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your talk page back to its original state prior to your additon of Cherokee language content which was more than likely copied and pasted directly from either the Cherokee-language Wikipedia or your own private project. If you want me to archive your talk page, you can do so by e-mailing me through Special:Emailuser/Ryulong and I will create the archive for you. The use of this page as your personal sandbox, especially in a different language than that of the project, is against policy. Additionally, your ultimatum will ultimately get you no where. You are the only person I know online who has any knowledge of the Cherokee language, and forcing individuals who wish to have contact with you by speaking a language that is basically dead to the majority of the Western world (not that there is anything wrong with it, but out of the 20000 speakers, there can't be many others on the English Wikipedia). If you do not respond to this message because I did not prefix it with an apology that will in many ways be meaningless to the two of us, then so be it. I tried to give you the olive branch and attempt to get you back in good standing, but if you persist in these ways, then you will likely be banned, again, and this time for being a stubborn old man.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)