Revision as of 06:04, 25 July 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No legal threats

1) Threats of legal action intended to intimidate other editors are incompatible with the wiki method of collaborative editing. Editors with concerns about article content may attempt to address their concerns through the normal editing process, or they may contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly about legal remedies, but they may not do both.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

2) There is no material difference between a direct legal threat (I will sue you if you don't change the article to my liking) and an indirect legal threat (someone else may sue you if you don't allow me to change this article content to my liking); both are violations of the No legal threats policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound in substance; wording may need to be narrowed slightly (e.g., "this material is a copyvio so we'd better delete it before the owner takes action" can be a legitimate comment). Newyorkbrad 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

3) Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons. Editors whose sole purpose is to oppose another editor or to bring outside drama to Misplaced Pages to negatively affect another editor may be banned from editing articles related to the harassed editor, or in extreme cases, from Wikpiedia itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

4) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

5) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Editors should not import drama and conflict from other sites or fora.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Compare Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Proposed decision#Misplaced Pages is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere, in which the arbitrators are about to endorse this same principle. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy not Allowed - Mediation Evidence is Banned

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The previous discussions of Native American Liability were within the framework of Mediation, which was successfully concluded by users involved. Given that mediation was successful, previous evidence is banned in these proceedings on this matter since settlement discussions are typically privileged and undiscoverable between the parties. Had these discussions been of such a serious nature to be considered by the arbcom, it should have been raised then. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey, I do not understand your comment, and am unsure if you are referring to the AN/I that immediately preceded this ArbCom, or an earlier instance of mediation. For the benefit of involved parties and the arbitrators, can you please specify when mediation occurred and with whom? Pfagerburg 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Was the mediation formal (sponsored by WP:MEDCOM) or informal? Formal mediation may not be used in ArbCom cases but there is no rule about informal mediation or the mediation cabal being used in an arbitration case. In any event, I am not especially interested in the subject of the mediation, but rather the fact that Kebron jumped into the dispute then jumped out, suggesting he was not really interested in the content of the dispute but just wanted to wind you up. Thatcher131 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation rights preemptive

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previous evidence of banning related to a previous Federal Lawsuit is banned pursuant to a settlement agreement between this party and Brad Patrick of the Wikimedia Foundation related to dismissed legal claims. Evidence of previous banning is barred pursuant to WP:OFFICE. The Wikimedia Foundation made binding promises to correct the problems caused by my lack of understanding of the project at the time and the legal dispute which was dismissed. Any such evidence is banned pursuant to these agreements. The Foundation is a "person" and as such has obligations to honor its promises. This project is obliged to honor them as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well, this is not a principle for consideration in the final decision, but rather a point of order, which should either be brought up on the talk page or in motions and requests by the parties (i.e. a request to redact certain evidence). The problem is that if we are only going to consider the account User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey then we can't discuss comments made by User:Kebron on various deleted talk pages, that would otherwise be evidence that his main purpose editing is to follow you around and wind you up. You may wish to e-mail your concern about this specific question to a member of ArbCom or Jimbo; they may wish to discuss it on their closed e-mail list. Thatcher131 04:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, this agreement is binding on the parties and the project. Since the Foundation is an alter-ego of the Community due to elections of the Board of Trustees, there is no longer any distinction between the two. I guess the basic premise here is how good is the word of the Foundation and the Community. Sufficient postings exist on SCOX to substanciate these claims. Evidence related to previous agreements is banned related to me but Kebron has no such covenants with the foundation, so the deleted pages are fair game where he is concerned. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what you think can and can not be discussed, since you don't seem to mean any form of Misplaced Pages mediation but rather some discussion that ocurred off-wiki. This discussion should be moved to the talk page or you should pursue this privately to request clarification. Thatcher131 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Decorum of the Tribunal

The arbitration committee does not accept cases filed by confirmed sockpuppets or single purpose accounts. This is particularly true when the initiator has been confirmed to have engaged in stalking and harrassment of Misplaced Pages editors, on-going vandalism, or other long term site abuse, or criminal activity which violates the law, such as online stalking and harassment. The Decorum of the Tribunal and its impartiality must be maintained to the highest possible standard, and this precludes the committe from becoming participants in the event itself. As such, any cases filed by SPA's will be summarily dismissed with prejudice as abuse of process of the site policies and procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely banned under a previous account, but was recently allowed to resume editing. Merkey has a history of making legal threats , most recently alleging that the Wikimedia Foundation could be civilly or criminally liable for allowing certain groups to falsely (in his view) claim membership in a Native American tribe. See also Template:NativeWarn.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence banned by previous agreements pursuant to WP:OFFICE. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

2) Merkey has edit-warred over the issue of Native American identity at Cherokee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence exists these were single purpose accounts. reverting edits of SPA's is not edit warring since edits made by such accounts are not good faith efforts to improve the project. As such, they were reverting vandalism. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

3) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is a controversial figure in the Linux/Freeware community and has been harassed on Misplaced Pages by a number of single-purpose accounts. For example, Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), talks_to_birds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Friendly neighbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sue me Jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), among others. (See their block logs.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Important to note this. Thatcher131 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg

4) Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has fewer than 200 edits, the majority of which relate to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in some manner. He has made edits to Jeffrey V. Merkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that tend to cast Mr. Merkey in a bad light. (Suggesting a lawsuit makes outrageous claims ; SCO lawsuit, based on documents hosted at a site critical of Mr. Merkey ).

In particular, these recent edits shows that although Pfagerburg's editing interests have broadened somewhat, he maintains a strong interest in Mr. Merkey's legal troubles and has not assimilated Misplaced Pages policies on No original research and Biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per a remedy I proposed below, there will be no further issues with Mr. Merkey's bio on my account. And I think staying away from other BLP's would be a good idea. WP:NOR is still a tricky issue, when combined with WP:PSTS, but I'm getting the hang of it, see . Pfagerburg 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg and the dispute over Native American Identity

5) Pfagerburg made a 1300+ word complaint at the Admins' Noticeboard regarding Merkey's use of legal threats in a content dispute. Pfagerburg was not previously involved in the dispute, except for two comments here , and had never edited any of the related articles or their talk pages. In this context, given Pfagerburg's lack of prior interest in the topic, and previous interest specifically in Merkey's alleged propensity for filing lawsuits, his involving himself in the Native American dispute constituted harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The length of the AN/I complaint (1300+ words) has been mentioned in two separate areas, as though that were an offense in and of itself. Most of those 1300 words were quotes from the diffs I linked to. In retrospect, I should have only linked the diffs and not quoted them as well. Pfagerburg 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron

6) As noted here, Kebron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account that generally acts to oppose Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. For example, on May 15, Kebron and JVM edit warred over the issue of tribal identity at Talk:Cherokee. The dispute seems to have been resolved by 23 June after mediation by User:Phaedriel. Kebron did not particpate in the mediation, and his last edit to Talk:Cherokee was You know what I give up. Look at Merkey's record... he is a liar. I give up... y'all deal with this idiot.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron's first edits

7) Kebron's first edits were to User talk:Gadugi, referencing a dispute on the Yahoo SCOX message board. (Admin only links )

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Thatcher131 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Kebron

8) Kebron began by harassing User:Gadugi over a dispute on the SCOX messageboard; he has continued to monitor the edits of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, making complaints and particpating in discussions at the Admins' noticeboard in which he was not a stakeholder; has agressively pursued Merkey's former accounts and sockpuppets ; has edit warred with Merkey but ignored the resulting mediation; and created Southern Cherokee Nation, a copyvio, to make a point while in a dispute with Merkey at Talk:Cherokee. While no single edit stands out as particularly incivil or harassing, Kebron's overall edit history constitutes harassment and wikistalking of Merkey.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that several commentors in the various AN/I threads since Merkey's return have also made this observation. Kebron's first edits were a continuation of an argument from the SCOX noticeboard and nearly every edit since then is either related to Merkey or is a case of Kebron jumping into a dispute between Merkey and someone else. Thatcher131 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned

1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the evidence were restricted to your editing post-May 2, 2007, there is plenty of evidence of poor behavior that could serve as the basis for a remedy of some kind. Thatcher131 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned

2) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing articles (including talk pages, Wikiprojects, and other project pages) related to Native Americans, broadly interpreted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is his main area of disruption, but also his major interest. Might amount to a de facto banning anyway. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on probation

3) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from any article and its talk page, for a suitable period of time, for disruptive edits, including making legal threats. Bans may be enforced by blocks of up to one week per violation. Bans and blocks to be recorded at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, on the theory that Misplaced Pages gives everyone 14 "second" chances. He has important knowledge but appears to be unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with community norms of behavior. Thatcher131 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned for three years

4) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for three years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee has issued bans of (potentially) longer length than one year in various special circumstances; see, e.g. the Henrygb case. Kirill 03:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Given that the evidence to substanciate this proposal involves double jeopardy from a previously closed and successfully concluded mediation, all such evidence is banned. This proposal therefore fails to address any geniune issue of fact. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As described on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_John254, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was previously blocked for over one and a half years for legal threats, returning to editing only in May of this year. As a one and a half year block has apparently proven ineffective in preventing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey from making additional legal threats, a stronger response is needed to the more recent legal threats described on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey#Statement_by_Pfagerburg. John254 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom only considers one-year bans to be within its jurisdiction. Thatcher131 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kebron banned indefinitely

5) Kebron is banned indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. As described on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Evidence#Kebron is a single purpose account, Kebron is a disruptive single purpose account used almost exclusively to make edits related to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. John254 02:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At present, Kebron is not a party to the case. If arbitrators wish to consider his conduct or potential remedies against him, I will notify him. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Still working on the evidence, by the way. Brad, please notify him. Thatcher131 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notified of the case and invited to submit evidence or proposals. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg topic banned

6) Pfagerburg is permanently prohibited from editing articles about Mr. Merkey. This includes Jeff V. Merkey and Talk:Jeff V. Merkey. And according to an earlier block, also User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and User_talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. This ban is to be interpreted broadly, i.e. no adding "the subject of this article was sued by Jeff Merkey for etc. etc." to, e.g. Bruce Perens.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm surprised no-one has suggested this yet, because it seems perfectly fair. Pfagerburg 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Permanent ban. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It was suggested by you three hours after the case was opened. That's pretty fast, actually. Someone would have gotten to it soon. Changed section header (modified "banned" to "topic banned") for clarity. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would have been in the first batch of proposals by Thatcher131. That's why I expressed surprise. Pfagerburg 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfagerburg, some cases sit for a month with no movement. This one caught my interest for some reason so I have been looking into evidence and possible remedies. I think a topical ban for you makes sense, particularly if you recognize a conflict of interest. Thatcher131 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge a conflict of interest. Prior to filing the ArbReq, I was certain that a topic ban would be issued, and to the extent that my consent or agreement matters, ArbCom has it without protest. Pfagerburg 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Noticeboard complaints involving Merkey

• 15 May, edit war at Cherokee. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive244#Cherokee. User:Duk notes that Merkey is being trolled on the SCOX message board and that "Kebron, from your edit history it's starting to look like you're only interested in following Jeff around and goading him".

• 19 May Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive248#Merkey.2C_again

• 10 July, Merkey complains about Kebron Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#SCOX_Issues_User:Kebron

• 14 July, complaint by Stormshadows00 (talk · contribs) about edit war at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive271#User:_Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey It is noted that Stormshadows00 is a single-purpose account and that Merkey is still being targeted by the SCOX message board. Kebron jumps in to contribute even though he has never edited the page or talk page in question.

• 17 July, Pfagerburg's magnum opus regarding the Native identification issue (with which he was uninvolved, except to file the complaint). Outcome: Merkey, Pfagerburg and Kebron blocked for 5 days, then this case was filed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Notes. Thatcher131 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: