Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::The Wikimedia Foundation Policies are preemptive over this project. It's not a community. No community I know of has drumhead trials and executes its members arbitrarily except for primitive societies with no concept of human rights. Misplaced Pages is a project, not a community. You understand full well what I mean, and no, we are not all equals here, except for our equal right to edit based on Wikimedia Foundation Policy, and that settles the matter. I have actual content to work on this evening for a company I am launching. Have a great evening. ] 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::The Wikimedia Foundation Policies are preemptive over this project. It's not a community. No community I know of has drumhead trials and executes its members arbitrarily except for primitive societies with no concept of human rights. Misplaced Pages is a project, not a community. You understand full well what I mean, and no, we are not all equals here, except for our equal right to edit based on Wikimedia Foundation Policy, and that settles the matter. I have actual content to work on this evening for a company I am launching. Have a great evening. ] 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
== ], ], ], ], ], ], ] ==
Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Misplaced Pages, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of ], these other users are all from the SCOX message board. 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 ].
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 firewarm 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages or in exchange for favorable edits. I believe one of the persons demanding the money was ] 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 Misplaced Pages, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Misplaced Pages 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 ] has provided a lot of help with this by blocking these trolls and mission posters and recording evidence of their conduct. ]. 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 bt blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Misplaced Pages has, The Wikimedia Foundations policies, and in many cases, State and Federal Laws as well. Users like ], 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 of interacting with me on this site, including ], and any other users who identify themselves as SCOX members, or who act in concert with them. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Misplaced Pages and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Misplaced Pages within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window.
This will resolve all of these issues. I cannot ask that they be banned from editing my bio because this violates the anyone can edit rule. Since Mr. Wales has taken over review of edits on my bio, they can edit it with knowledge their activities are being periodically reviewed by Senior Foundation officials.
The User in question has been indefinitely blocked by two admins (JzG and Friday) for his latest disruption, and has exhausted community patience. For all intensive purposes, User:GordonWatts is banned from editing Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user in question is a habitual and perpetual edit warrior, who was blocked for a time after a discussion on CN back in March. The sanctions were appealed by Gordon to ArbCom, and the punishment (as well as the rights of the community to present alternate sanctions) was affirmed, as ArbCom rejected Gordon's case.
Short-term blocks have been tried, and failed. Alternate sanctions have been tried, and failed. Gordon Watts is not here to build consensus and more importantly, an encyclopedia. I suggest re-imposing a community ban, but if anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. SirFozzie20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that JzG Friday has just blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen(talk)20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I have no objections to anyone adjusting as needed (altho it seems unlikely). I just didn't want there to be fuel for conflict of interest complaints. Friday(talk)20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but he said Guy used foul language, I have to know whether if Guy really did so...Wooyi20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably he did, going by his userpage, but I don't know that that's relevant to Gordon Watts being banned. Newyorkbrad20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why based on your knowledge of the situation and the past history? You feel that Gordon is about to make some positive contributions that involve building a encyclopedia? --Fredrick day20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? Coming back after a previous community ban on articles and then a fairly long block, and attempting to have an admin sanctioned for implementing the Community's consensus (which ArbCom explicitly endorsed) and throwing in other things doesn't seem to be a very good behaviour. Combine that with wikilawyering and constant disruption, and I'd think this was a no-brainer. However, since there is an opposition to me closing the discussion for archiving, I have removed the archived discussion tags. SirFozzie20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain, there are too many issues here and I really can't elaborate. The Misplaced Pages mess of blocking/banning is one reason why I almost decided to leave Misplaced Pages (check my userpage for explanation). I just think this ban is not justified...for reasons hard to say. I stayed as of now only because all the WikiFriends urged me to. It's time to move on, we are building a database of human knowledge, no need to be fighting, it's the time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Wooyi20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And I understand where you're coming from. We are building an encyclopedia here, and that is a totally inclusive thing. We want as many eyes as we can on our work. However, when we take a look at the history of Gordon's edit warring on Terri Schiavo, placing undue weight on a discredited theory, and inability to BUILD a database of human knowledge, unfortunately there is no working with folks. Hopefully that alleviates your concern. SirFozzie20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about peace or fighting, as though those are the two choices we have. It's about removing obstacles to the project. Gordan made himself an obstacle. Friday(talk)20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that I understand, but sometimes it's necessary to have the occasional little purge of those who do not wish to build this wonderful, free, neutral database of human knowledge. Those who come here as flamewarriors need to be shown the flame-retardant door. It used to be called ostracism, now it's called banning. It's an idea with history that works pretty well. Moreschi20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
what you seem to saying is that you are against on what seem to be POINT reasons rather than the merits of the case? would that be fair to say? If we are building an encyclopedia, why would we want to encourage distruptive unproductive editors who don't assist in that goal? --Fredrick day20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, let's just consider Gordon Watts banned. The only instance that he will become unbanned is if an administrator believes that he should be unblocked (or if Jimbo does it himself). I seriously doubt that anyone will be unblocking this user in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statement by Gordon Watts
Mr. Watts e-mailed me stating that he believed it was unjust he had been banned under these circumstances. Since he had not had an opportunity to participate in this discussion, I advised him that I would be willing to forward a brief statement from him to this noticeboard. His statement is below. Newyorkbrad21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing since my return to warrant discipline, thus any discipline is unwarranted. (This is "defense.")
Also, it is my right to bring an action as I did. (I defend myself in the action itself:
Now, the offense speaks for itself: My prosecution of the case might not rank alongside with 'smoking gun evidence for a murder' or the like, but a crime is a crime, and, here, in Wiki-Wonder-Land, we still have laws and rules and policy guidelines.
If we throw these to the side simply because we "don't like gordon," then we become a lawless anarchy -or, perhaps, a dictatorship.
For those that "decide" on my case without actually reading it, they are *not* psychic, and this is an insult to my intelligence -and to the supposed "rule of law" we supposedly endorse here is Wiki-Wonder-Worlds or Wonder.
I tried contributing (see my recent edit history), but the continued violations of policy by several admins made me get to the root source, which was Guy.
One LAST thing: Here is proof I am not on a witch-hunt: I did not seek action against Bish or Nande, the other two admins who very recently vandalized my pages: Reasons: I believed in good faith that Guy's false claims about supposed, alleged consensus misled them.
Misplaced Pages has angered a lot of people. Want a shovel? They need to just dig a little deeper: Dictatorships Government have never worked: (Good thing an admin can't put my in jail, or we'd all be in bad shape.) Why does Misplaced Pages think that it will be any different: If admins don't follow the same rules they demand of others, it is NO BETTER than a dictatorship -and probably worse.
The fact that a "consensus" of a few admins replaced the more valid consensus of the many who voted in the action (which JzG Guy closed) is "not counting the votes" right -dishonesty.
That is my statement: It is dull, but it is the truth. I stick to it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
complete bollocks of course (I had a similar email as I guess others did) - he tried to get arbcom to take on his ban from various pages and adding links and they rejected it out of hand. The idea that Guy is acting as some form of rogue admin in this matter is just nonsense - there was lots of debate and at the end, even his supporters lost it at the end with his constant wikilawyering. Let's put an end to this here and now. This drama has nothing at all to do with improving or producing an encyclopedia - some editors just don't fit in here, they are incapable of being part of such a project - sad but true. --Fredrick day21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd never had any direct interaction with this user before, but he did send me an abusive e-mail a while back after I made a simple, honest mistake. This user is not here to be helpful, and may go down in history as our most prolific Wikilawyer ever. Full support. Grandmasterka22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Deskana. It's telling that his explanation for why he shouldn't be blocked consists solely of attacking someone else, ignoring the actual issues. -Amarkovmoo!00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked his edit history, and I think he has added some good contents to Schiavo article. Of course there are mistakes, but I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, a caution is enough. Wooyi01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The value of the content is actually arguable, but it's also irrelevant: the reasons for the banning include exhaustion of community patience for endless and relentless wikilawyering, the complete unwillingness to follow the most basic guidelines regarding reliable sources, the complete inability to take "no" for an answer, the tireless self-promotion, the king-sized axe-grinding this was all in support of, and the gooey bath of smarmy passive-aggressive false humility it was all coated with. He's also been community-banned from Schiavo articles -- a proper ban, upheld by ArbCom, no matter how much Gordon tries to spin it -- so his contributions, whatever they may be, to Schiavo articles mean even less, since that means that that aspect has already been weighed by the community and found to be insufficient. "Caution" is meaningless, since he's had a month's worth of "caution" (i.e., a block) and his immediate response on his return is a transparently ludicrous and smarmy attempt at revenge with his community-ban proposal against JzG. Enough is enough, and as far as I'm concerned, that point was reached months ago, let alone now. --Calton | Talk01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation, I still really cannot support such a ban. The mess of blocking/banning was one of the reason I almost left Misplaced Pages. Let's move on. Maybe my reason is kind of pointy, but can't help it. Wooyi01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me a ban is justified. While Watts' contributions have some value, there have also been problems with his contributions. However, from what we know about the way he communicates, it is clear we have two options if he is not banned: (1) just let him do whatever he wants or (2) engage in endless wikilawyering. Neither one is acceptable. Wooyi, your well-meaning "caution" would simply lead to him challenging it and then discussing it with you at length and drawing in other editors for a month, not in him taking it as a legitimate concern. The same kind of thing has happened too many times for us to ignore that, IMO. Mangojuice03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not what Misplaced Pages is for.It's like this: GordonWatts thinks he is right, and he also thinks he should be allowed to link his own site to the Schiavo article. We've tried reasoning with him, we've tried telling him outright that his edits fail WP:NPOV, we've tried being nice to him, we've tried being firm with him, we've tried restricting him from the articles he disrupts, but none of that works because Watts is absolutely convinced that he is right and anyone who disagrees is therefore necessarily wrong. Worse, he will epxlain to you why he is right and you are wrong at incredible length, and go on doing so until you die of boredom or lose patience with him - either of which results in him becoming even more convinced that he is right. The one thing he absolutely will not do, however often and however firmly he is asked, is to drop the stick and step away from the horse. And that, as noted above, makes his presence on Misplaced Pages intolerably disruptive. He absolutely will not accept consensus where it conflicts with his agenda, and he absolutely will not shut up about it until he gets what he wants. And at some point - this being, I think, that point - we just have to say sorry, Gordon, we are simply not interested any more. Actually, this is so blindingly obvious by now that I cannot imagine why we are still being sucked into Watts' endless Wikilawyering. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him - so far backwards that at times we have been in danger of sticking our heads up our own arses - and nothing has changed, Watts still thinks he's right, still asserts his right to keep doing the things that exhausted everybody's patience before, and still seems to think that Misplaced Pages is the place to Right Great Wrongs. He also seems to think we are in a court of law, or are legalistically regulated. We're not. This is a volunteer-run project, and those who come here to pursue an agenda and obdurately refuse to work collaboratively and consensually with other volunteers, get shown the door. Usually a lot sooner than this. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never been involved in the Schiavo articles, but I've seen this user's disruptions to the community for the past two years. There is no longer a prospect that the user will change his behavior and the community needs to accept that fact. We've been very patient. It's time to put this behind us. ·:·Will Beback·:·11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Misplaced Pages from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Returned from an indefinite block due to his persistant legal threats, Merkey has been singularly unable or unwilling to remain civil and assume good faith with other contributors.
In his short time back, he has engaged in stale revert wars at Cherokee and Mountain Meadows massacre. He has additionally created a BLP-violating hit-piece on one of his political opponents - David Cornsilk. In doing so, he has remained singularly unable to do anything but fight, even with users (such as myself) who have not expressed a preference either way regarding the topics he cares so desperately about.
In attempting to discuss this with Merkey, he is instantly beligerant - accusing any and all users who disagree with him of being "trolls" "SCOX trolls" "well-known trolls," and the like.
Merkey is also generally unable to assume good faith. In response to an edit conflict in which a comment of his was accidentally removed, he stated "You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me." Of course, the "removal" was a bog-normal edit conflict.
This is a pattern of behavior that shows no signs of abating, no signs of changing. Merkey is not here to build an encyclopedia - he is here to play internet fight with his opponents, and push his POV on article relating to his political struggles. While the behavior of some individuals harassing him has been innapropriate and unnaceptable, there is no evidence that Merkey is remotely interested in working on the encyclopedia.
The community should place Merkey under standard civility and revert probation - preventing him from reverting any change (including vandalism, as he has demonstrated an inability to tell "vandalism" from "people I dislike") more than once per day, and providing that any adminstrator can block him for any violation of civility for 24 hours, extending to one month after the third such block, one year after fourth and indef on the fifth.
Because this situtation does not require substantial fact finding, I am hopefull the community can impose this protective measure, which in no way prohibits whatever useful cooperative editing Merkey might choose to do, without the difficulty of a long, drawn out arbitration with a foregone conclusion (single purpose trolls get banned, Merkey is either banned or gets civility and revert probation).
Given his obvious good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia I would recommend dispute resolution processes possibly leading to arbcom restrictions of the type proposed by Hipocrite, but would oppose these restrictions being imposed by the community. Such restrictions when imposed by arbcom tend to be more effective and would be more appropriate in this particular case, SqueakBox17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to WP:AGF more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. SirFozzie17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Misplaced Pages, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. It appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Misplaced Pages and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a hard time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Misplaced Pages -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And in response to the post by Hipocrite, David Cornsilk is not a political rival, he is a Cherokee Brother. Hipocrtie does not undersand our society if he makes such a statements. We view ourselves as brothers and sisters always. This statement is so far from reality its sad. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Merkey specifically asked to return to the English Misplaced Pages because he wanted to correct what he said was erroneous information in articles about the Cherokee. His first 70 or so edits were on Cherokee articles or his own user page, but then he started making accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry onto other users' pages (sans any checkuser results, I might add).
On 4 May 2007, Merkey made a series of edits to Eric Schmidt's biography, in gross violation of WP:BLP, placing unsourced or badly-out-of-context quotes into the article. Merkey's defense of his libelous statements was, paraphrased, "I worked at novell, I have inside knowledge, you can find this information if you look hard enough."
From his behaviour on the Eric Schmidt and Mountain Meadows Massacre pages, and his "non Cherokee people are not allowed to edit articles about the Cherokee, no matter how well-cited their edits are" attitude, I perceive a serious case of axe-grinding.
I agree with Hipocrite, that he should be prevented from reverting others' changes. I'm not sure how that's 100% possible, since the difference between a revert and a cut-n-paste is which keys you press, even though the end result can be the same.
I would further support a ban on Jeff editing any article that does not directly relate to the Cherokee; that was his stated reason for wanting to return, so let him edit those articles, but leave the previous indef ban in place for the rest of English Misplaced Pages for his ludicrous legal threats and his libelous statements made on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, including merkeylaw.com. Whether such a ban can be enforced by completely automated means, or a bot has to do a daily dump of his contributions for a human to examine, I don't know, but I think it's an excellent idea to hold him to his word and keep him off everything but the Cherokee pages. Pfagerburg19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In some of the threads at WP:AN/I, Jeff is better described as the victim than the party at fault. Have the early stages of dispute resolution been tried since his return? Is there anyone willing to act as a mentor? (I do think an experienced mentor could be a help here.) GRBerry20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If an experienced adminstrator were willing to act as a critical mentor, with the authority to use tools as they deemed necessary (unconstrained by standard blocking policy), per other mentorship agreements, I believe that would solve the problem. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Mentoring sounds a good idea to me, it would be nice to see some kind of dispute resolution between Jeffrey and Hipocrite happen as well, SqueakBox20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If merkey wishes to make his accusations that I am a troll, following him around with the intent to harass and what not against me, he can certainly file an RFC. In fact, if you'd like to file that RFC for him, I would be happy to comment on both your conduct and his conduct. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
referring to who precisely? I personally think an Rfc would not be appropriate at this time but mediation to clear any bad blood between Jeffrey and Hipocrite could be very positive, SqueakBox20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You refering to you, Squeakbox. I have comments. I will engage in no mediation with either you or Merkey, as there is no issue to mediate. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly unaware of having any issues with you, Hipocrite, and wasnt suggesting mediation with yourself. My only desire here is to ensure that Jeffrey continues editing in positive ways, SqueakBox20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to close my part of this discussion with my findings after examing all the facts here, as a neutral party as much as I can.
1. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is just that. There are no requirements for any consideration for my rights to edit here based upon representations made by the foundation to the general public.
2. There are a large number of trolls on SCOX who have followed me to this site. Their general message seems to be, "we are here to save you from Merkey" or messages to that affect. They approached me before I edited on this project in forays on SCOX and Groklaw they would post an article about me on Misplaced Pages unless I did "X" or "Y" or some other thing, then proceeded to do so and use it a platform for extortion. Almost all of these folks at some point or another sent emails or letters or other demands for money or favor or jobs or some other huey, claiming everything from back pay and percentages of profits for various projects, to be cut in on ownership of companies or other nonsense.
3. It's a repeatable pattern. Someone lays in wait gathering up "Drudge Report" nonsense, then tries through simply yelling louder than I do on a blog or wiki somewhere to get me "under someone's thumb" in exchange for some online "privilege" like editing -- usually with the end goal of getting close enough to me to hit me up for money or some other subtle form of control.
4. This most recent event involved Hipocrite gathering a hit list with edits before anything occurred, then revert ambush wars and logging the results. This seems a little spooky and creepy to me. I note one comment where he is "saving Misplaced Pages from Merkey" or words to that affect. Needless to say, I've heard this before.
5. As for saving Misplaced Pages, I donate many thousands of dollars to the project and plan to continue to do so. I think I am "helping Misplaced Pages" already, and I am under no obligation to do so nor is any consideration required for the same right to edit as advertised by the Foundation as anyone else.
Given these facts, I consider this posting at the community sanctions board to be an attempt to require consideration for editing, i.e. an admin with Hipocrite holding his leash to follow me around to deal with the trolls and scammers trying to either rile me up for entertainment purposes or disrupt editing to gain control of articles or me. I have to decline to go along with Hipocrites charade to protect the freedom of the project. I already know what to do to resolve most of this and I think I am doing it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to work out what you are saying here. I don't understand what you mean. People are blackmailing you? Who has done this to you? If it's true, it sounds outrageous. Have you reported them to authorities? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am genuinely puzzled as to why you keep bringing up your purported donations to wikipedia. Does wikipedia grant immunity from policies to anyone who makes a donation? Are you arguing that you should be treated differently to any other editor because you have donated? What exactly is your point? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Policies are preemptive over this project. It's not a community. No community I know of has drumhead trials and executes its members arbitrarily except for primitive societies with no concept of human rights. Misplaced Pages is a project, not a community. You understand full well what I mean, and no, we are not all equals here, except for our equal right to edit based on Wikimedia Foundation Policy, and that settles the matter. I have actual content to work on this evening for a company I am launching. Have a great evening. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Misplaced Pages, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of User:Hipocrite, these other users are all from the SCOX message board. 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.
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 firewarm 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Misplaced Pages 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 bt blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Misplaced Pages 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 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. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Misplaced Pages and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Misplaced Pages within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window.
This will resolve all of these issues. I cannot ask that they be banned from editing my bio because this violates the anyone can edit rule. Since Mr. Wales has taken over review of edits on my bio, they can edit it with knowledge their activities are being periodically reviewed by Senior Foundation officials.
The User in question has been indefinitely blocked by two admins (JzG and Friday) for his latest disruption, and has exhausted community patience. For all intensive purposes, User:GordonWatts is banned from editing Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user in question is a habitual and perpetual edit warrior, who was blocked for a time after a discussion on CN back in March. The sanctions were appealed by Gordon to ArbCom, and the punishment (as well as the rights of the community to present alternate sanctions) was affirmed, as ArbCom rejected Gordon's case.
Short-term blocks have been tried, and failed. Alternate sanctions have been tried, and failed. Gordon Watts is not here to build consensus and more importantly, an encyclopedia. I suggest re-imposing a community ban, but if anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. SirFozzie20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that JzG Friday has just blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen(talk)20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I have no objections to anyone adjusting as needed (altho it seems unlikely). I just didn't want there to be fuel for conflict of interest complaints. Friday(talk)20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but he said Guy used foul language, I have to know whether if Guy really did so...Wooyi20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably he did, going by his userpage, but I don't know that that's relevant to Gordon Watts being banned. Newyorkbrad20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why based on your knowledge of the situation and the past history? You feel that Gordon is about to make some positive contributions that involve building a encyclopedia? --Fredrick day20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? Coming back after a previous community ban on articles and then a fairly long block, and attempting to have an admin sanctioned for implementing the Community's consensus (which ArbCom explicitly endorsed) and throwing in other things doesn't seem to be a very good behaviour. Combine that with wikilawyering and constant disruption, and I'd think this was a no-brainer. However, since there is an opposition to me closing the discussion for archiving, I have removed the archived discussion tags. SirFozzie20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain, there are too many issues here and I really can't elaborate. The Misplaced Pages mess of blocking/banning is one reason why I almost decided to leave Misplaced Pages (check my userpage for explanation). I just think this ban is not justified...for reasons hard to say. I stayed as of now only because all the WikiFriends urged me to. It's time to move on, we are building a database of human knowledge, no need to be fighting, it's the time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Wooyi20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And I understand where you're coming from. We are building an encyclopedia here, and that is a totally inclusive thing. We want as many eyes as we can on our work. However, when we take a look at the history of Gordon's edit warring on Terri Schiavo, placing undue weight on a discredited theory, and inability to BUILD a database of human knowledge, unfortunately there is no working with folks. Hopefully that alleviates your concern. SirFozzie20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about peace or fighting, as though those are the two choices we have. It's about removing obstacles to the project. Gordan made himself an obstacle. Friday(talk)20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that I understand, but sometimes it's necessary to have the occasional little purge of those who do not wish to build this wonderful, free, neutral database of human knowledge. Those who come here as flamewarriors need to be shown the flame-retardant door. It used to be called ostracism, now it's called banning. It's an idea with history that works pretty well. Moreschi20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
what you seem to saying is that you are against on what seem to be POINT reasons rather than the merits of the case? would that be fair to say? If we are building an encyclopedia, why would we want to encourage distruptive unproductive editors who don't assist in that goal? --Fredrick day20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, let's just consider Gordon Watts banned. The only instance that he will become unbanned is if an administrator believes that he should be unblocked (or if Jimbo does it himself). I seriously doubt that anyone will be unblocking this user in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statement by Gordon Watts
Mr. Watts e-mailed me stating that he believed it was unjust he had been banned under these circumstances. Since he had not had an opportunity to participate in this discussion, I advised him that I would be willing to forward a brief statement from him to this noticeboard. His statement is below. Newyorkbrad21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing since my return to warrant discipline, thus any discipline is unwarranted. (This is "defense.")
Also, it is my right to bring an action as I did. (I defend myself in the action itself:
Now, the offense speaks for itself: My prosecution of the case might not rank alongside with 'smoking gun evidence for a murder' or the like, but a crime is a crime, and, here, in Wiki-Wonder-Land, we still have laws and rules and policy guidelines.
If we throw these to the side simply because we "don't like gordon," then we become a lawless anarchy -or, perhaps, a dictatorship.
For those that "decide" on my case without actually reading it, they are *not* psychic, and this is an insult to my intelligence -and to the supposed "rule of law" we supposedly endorse here is Wiki-Wonder-Worlds or Wonder.
I tried contributing (see my recent edit history), but the continued violations of policy by several admins made me get to the root source, which was Guy.
One LAST thing: Here is proof I am not on a witch-hunt: I did not seek action against Bish or Nande, the other two admins who very recently vandalized my pages: Reasons: I believed in good faith that Guy's false claims about supposed, alleged consensus misled them.
Misplaced Pages has angered a lot of people. Want a shovel? They need to just dig a little deeper: Dictatorships Government have never worked: (Good thing an admin can't put my in jail, or we'd all be in bad shape.) Why does Misplaced Pages think that it will be any different: If admins don't follow the same rules they demand of others, it is NO BETTER than a dictatorship -and probably worse.
The fact that a "consensus" of a few admins replaced the more valid consensus of the many who voted in the action (which JzG Guy closed) is "not counting the votes" right -dishonesty.
That is my statement: It is dull, but it is the truth. I stick to it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
complete bollocks of course (I had a similar email as I guess others did) - he tried to get arbcom to take on his ban from various pages and adding links and they rejected it out of hand. The idea that Guy is acting as some form of rogue admin in this matter is just nonsense - there was lots of debate and at the end, even his supporters lost it at the end with his constant wikilawyering. Let's put an end to this here and now. This drama has nothing at all to do with improving or producing an encyclopedia - some editors just don't fit in here, they are incapable of being part of such a project - sad but true. --Fredrick day21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd never had any direct interaction with this user before, but he did send me an abusive e-mail a while back after I made a simple, honest mistake. This user is not here to be helpful, and may go down in history as our most prolific Wikilawyer ever. Full support. Grandmasterka22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Deskana. It's telling that his explanation for why he shouldn't be blocked consists solely of attacking someone else, ignoring the actual issues. -Amarkovmoo!00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked his edit history, and I think he has added some good contents to Schiavo article. Of course there are mistakes, but I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, a caution is enough. Wooyi01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The value of the content is actually arguable, but it's also irrelevant: the reasons for the banning include exhaustion of community patience for endless and relentless wikilawyering, the complete unwillingness to follow the most basic guidelines regarding reliable sources, the complete inability to take "no" for an answer, the tireless self-promotion, the king-sized axe-grinding this was all in support of, and the gooey bath of smarmy passive-aggressive false humility it was all coated with. He's also been community-banned from Schiavo articles -- a proper ban, upheld by ArbCom, no matter how much Gordon tries to spin it -- so his contributions, whatever they may be, to Schiavo articles mean even less, since that means that that aspect has already been weighed by the community and found to be insufficient. "Caution" is meaningless, since he's had a month's worth of "caution" (i.e., a block) and his immediate response on his return is a transparently ludicrous and smarmy attempt at revenge with his community-ban proposal against JzG. Enough is enough, and as far as I'm concerned, that point was reached months ago, let alone now. --Calton | Talk01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation, I still really cannot support such a ban. The mess of blocking/banning was one of the reason I almost left Misplaced Pages. Let's move on. Maybe my reason is kind of pointy, but can't help it. Wooyi01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me a ban is justified. While Watts' contributions have some value, there have also been problems with his contributions. However, from what we know about the way he communicates, it is clear we have two options if he is not banned: (1) just let him do whatever he wants or (2) engage in endless wikilawyering. Neither one is acceptable. Wooyi, your well-meaning "caution" would simply lead to him challenging it and then discussing it with you at length and drawing in other editors for a month, not in him taking it as a legitimate concern. The same kind of thing has happened too many times for us to ignore that, IMO. Mangojuice03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not what Misplaced Pages is for.It's like this: GordonWatts thinks he is right, and he also thinks he should be allowed to link his own site to the Schiavo article. We've tried reasoning with him, we've tried telling him outright that his edits fail WP:NPOV, we've tried being nice to him, we've tried being firm with him, we've tried restricting him from the articles he disrupts, but none of that works because Watts is absolutely convinced that he is right and anyone who disagrees is therefore necessarily wrong. Worse, he will epxlain to you why he is right and you are wrong at incredible length, and go on doing so until you die of boredom or lose patience with him - either of which results in him becoming even more convinced that he is right. The one thing he absolutely will not do, however often and however firmly he is asked, is to drop the stick and step away from the horse. And that, as noted above, makes his presence on Misplaced Pages intolerably disruptive. He absolutely will not accept consensus where it conflicts with his agenda, and he absolutely will not shut up about it until he gets what he wants. And at some point - this being, I think, that point - we just have to say sorry, Gordon, we are simply not interested any more. Actually, this is so blindingly obvious by now that I cannot imagine why we are still being sucked into Watts' endless Wikilawyering. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him - so far backwards that at times we have been in danger of sticking our heads up our own arses - and nothing has changed, Watts still thinks he's right, still asserts his right to keep doing the things that exhausted everybody's patience before, and still seems to think that Misplaced Pages is the place to Right Great Wrongs. He also seems to think we are in a court of law, or are legalistically regulated. We're not. This is a volunteer-run project, and those who come here to pursue an agenda and obdurately refuse to work collaboratively and consensually with other volunteers, get shown the door. Usually a lot sooner than this. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never been involved in the Schiavo articles, but I've seen this user's disruptions to the community for the past two years. There is no longer a prospect that the user will change his behavior and the community needs to accept that fact. We've been very patient. It's time to put this behind us. ·:·Will Beback·:·11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Misplaced Pages from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Returned from an indefinite block due to his persistant legal threats, Merkey has been singularly unable or unwilling to remain civil and assume good faith with other contributors.
In his short time back, he has engaged in stale revert wars at Cherokee and Mountain Meadows massacre. He has additionally created a BLP-violating hit-piece on one of his political opponents - David Cornsilk. In doing so, he has remained singularly unable to do anything but fight, even with users (such as myself) who have not expressed a preference either way regarding the topics he cares so desperately about.
In attempting to discuss this with Merkey, he is instantly beligerant - accusing any and all users who disagree with him of being "trolls" "SCOX trolls" "well-known trolls," and the like.
Merkey is also generally unable to assume good faith. In response to an edit conflict in which a comment of his was accidentally removed, he stated "You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me." Of course, the "removal" was a bog-normal edit conflict.
This is a pattern of behavior that shows no signs of abating, no signs of changing. Merkey is not here to build an encyclopedia - he is here to play internet fight with his opponents, and push his POV on article relating to his political struggles. While the behavior of some individuals harassing him has been innapropriate and unnaceptable, there is no evidence that Merkey is remotely interested in working on the encyclopedia.
The community should place Merkey under standard civility and revert probation - preventing him from reverting any change (including vandalism, as he has demonstrated an inability to tell "vandalism" from "people I dislike") more than once per day, and providing that any adminstrator can block him for any violation of civility for 24 hours, extending to one month after the third such block, one year after fourth and indef on the fifth.
Because this situtation does not require substantial fact finding, I am hopefull the community can impose this protective measure, which in no way prohibits whatever useful cooperative editing Merkey might choose to do, without the difficulty of a long, drawn out arbitration with a foregone conclusion (single purpose trolls get banned, Merkey is either banned or gets civility and revert probation).
Given his obvious good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia I would recommend dispute resolution processes possibly leading to arbcom restrictions of the type proposed by Hipocrite, but would oppose these restrictions being imposed by the community. Such restrictions when imposed by arbcom tend to be more effective and would be more appropriate in this particular case, SqueakBox17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to WP:AGF more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. SirFozzie17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Misplaced Pages, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. It appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Misplaced Pages and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a hard time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Misplaced Pages -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And in response to the post by Hipocrite, David Cornsilk is not a political rival, he is a Cherokee Brother. Hipocrtie does not undersand our society if he makes such a statements. We view ourselves as brothers and sisters always. This statement is so far from reality its sad. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Merkey specifically asked to return to the English Misplaced Pages because he wanted to correct what he said was erroneous information in articles about the Cherokee. His first 70 or so edits were on Cherokee articles or his own user page, but then he started making accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry onto other users' pages (sans any checkuser results, I might add).
On 4 May 2007, Merkey made a series of edits to Eric Schmidt's biography, in gross violation of WP:BLP, placing unsourced or badly-out-of-context quotes into the article. Merkey's defense of his libelous statements was, paraphrased, "I worked at novell, I have inside knowledge, you can find this information if you look hard enough."
From his behaviour on the Eric Schmidt and Mountain Meadows Massacre pages, and his "non Cherokee people are not allowed to edit articles about the Cherokee, no matter how well-cited their edits are" attitude, I perceive a serious case of axe-grinding.
I agree with Hipocrite, that he should be prevented from reverting others' changes. I'm not sure how that's 100% possible, since the difference between a revert and a cut-n-paste is which keys you press, even though the end result can be the same.
I would further support a ban on Jeff editing any article that does not directly relate to the Cherokee; that was his stated reason for wanting to return, so let him edit those articles, but leave the previous indef ban in place for the rest of English Misplaced Pages for his ludicrous legal threats and his libelous statements made on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, including merkeylaw.com. Whether such a ban can be enforced by completely automated means, or a bot has to do a daily dump of his contributions for a human to examine, I don't know, but I think it's an excellent idea to hold him to his word and keep him off everything but the Cherokee pages. Pfagerburg19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In some of the threads at WP:AN/I, Jeff is better described as the victim than the party at fault. Have the early stages of dispute resolution been tried since his return? Is there anyone willing to act as a mentor? (I do think an experienced mentor could be a help here.) GRBerry20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If an experienced adminstrator were willing to act as a critical mentor, with the authority to use tools as they deemed necessary (unconstrained by standard blocking policy), per other mentorship agreements, I believe that would solve the problem. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Mentoring sounds a good idea to me, it would be nice to see some kind of dispute resolution between Jeffrey and Hipocrite happen as well, SqueakBox20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If merkey wishes to make his accusations that I am a troll, following him around with the intent to harass and what not against me, he can certainly file an RFC. In fact, if you'd like to file that RFC for him, I would be happy to comment on both your conduct and his conduct. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
referring to who precisely? I personally think an Rfc would not be appropriate at this time but mediation to clear any bad blood between Jeffrey and Hipocrite could be very positive, SqueakBox20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You refering to you, Squeakbox. I have comments. I will engage in no mediation with either you or Merkey, as there is no issue to mediate. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly unaware of having any issues with you, Hipocrite, and wasnt suggesting mediation with yourself. My only desire here is to ensure that Jeffrey continues editing in positive ways, SqueakBox20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to close my part of this discussion with my findings after examing all the facts here, as a neutral party as much as I can.
1. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is just that. There are no requirements for any consideration for my rights to edit here based upon representations made by the foundation to the general public.
2. There are a large number of trolls on SCOX who have followed me to this site. Their general message seems to be, "we are here to save you from Merkey" or messages to that affect. They approached me before I edited on this project in forays on SCOX and Groklaw they would post an article about me on Misplaced Pages unless I did "X" or "Y" or some other thing, then proceeded to do so and use it a platform for extortion. Almost all of these folks at some point or another sent emails or letters or other demands for money or favor or jobs or some other huey, claiming everything from back pay and percentages of profits for various projects, to be cut in on ownership of companies or other nonsense.
3. It's a repeatable pattern. Someone lays in wait gathering up "Drudge Report" nonsense, then tries through simply yelling louder than I do on a blog or wiki somewhere to get me "under someone's thumb" in exchange for some online "privilege" like editing -- usually with the end goal of getting close enough to me to hit me up for money or some other subtle form of control.
4. This most recent event involved Hipocrite gathering a hit list with edits before anything occurred, then revert ambush wars and logging the results. This seems a little spooky and creepy to me. I note one comment where he is "saving Misplaced Pages from Merkey" or words to that affect. Needless to say, I've heard this before.
5. As for saving Misplaced Pages, I donate many thousands of dollars to the project and plan to continue to do so. I think I am "helping Misplaced Pages" already, and I am under no obligation to do so nor is any consideration required for the same right to edit as advertised by the Foundation as anyone else.
Given these facts, I consider this posting at the community sanctions board to be an attempt to require consideration for editing, i.e. an admin with Hipocrite holding his leash to follow me around to deal with the trolls and scammers trying to either rile me up for entertainment purposes or disrupt editing to gain control of articles or me. I have to decline to go along with Hipocrites charade to protect the freedom of the project. I already know what to do to resolve most of this and I think I am doing it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to work out what you are saying here. I don't understand what you mean. People are blackmailing you? Who has done this to you? If it's true, it sounds outrageous. Have you reported them to authorities? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am genuinely puzzled as to why you keep bringing up your purported donations to wikipedia. Does wikipedia grant immunity from policies to anyone who makes a donation? Are you arguing that you should be treated differently to any other editor because you have donated? What exactly is your point? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Policies are preemptive over this project. It's not a community. No community I know of has drumhead trials and executes its members arbitrarily except for primitive societies with no concept of human rights. Misplaced Pages is a project, not a community. You understand full well what I mean, and no, we are not all equals here, except for our equal right to edit based on Wikimedia Foundation Policy, and that settles the matter. I have actual content to work on this evening for a company I am launching. Have a great evening. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Misplaced Pages, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of User:Hipocrite, these other users are all from the SCOX message board. 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.
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 firewarm 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Misplaced Pages 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 bt blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Misplaced Pages 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 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. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Misplaced Pages and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Misplaced Pages within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window.
This will resolve all of these issues. I cannot ask that they be banned from editing my bio because this violates the anyone can edit rule. Since Mr. Wales has taken over review of edits on my bio, they can edit it with knowledge their activities are being periodically reviewed by Senior Foundation officials.
