Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89

Folks, I have blocked

• Unfortunately, I have to support this, even with the massive shitstorm this could potentially unleash, because it's the right thing to do. He. just. Does. Not. Get. It. He's drifted more and more off the plot with each and every edit he's made. SirFozzie 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I state no position on other matters. But I endorse the speedy deletion of
  Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Had it come to MFD, there would have almost certainly been a unanimous chorus of opinions to delete from all experienced Wikipedia editors, with much discussion of why it was wrong. We can do without the additional drain on everyone's time that that would involve. The issues that the editor clearly wanted to raise therein have are already been raised by xem at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 and can be (and are being) discussed by the community there. Uncle G 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Right to Edit was one of funniest things I've read for a long time - please, someone, send it over to Uncyclopedia - but Wikipedia is not solely designed for humour, lamentably. Merkey's edits have become so far divorced from the reality of what you can and cannot do that I don't think we've been left with any option other than ridding ourselves of the disruption he causes. Moreschi ^Talk 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree the block is necessary to prevent his continued disruption. A corollary is that anyone who has come to Wikipedia to fight with him should be shown the door. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• As one of the original proponents that he be unblocked, I agree that he should probably be blocked indefinitely again. He deserved the chance he was given, but he was disruptive. I understand that there are other users who have been bothering him; that doesn't excuse his actions and attitude in conflicts. Ral315 » 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• He was given a second chance to be a constructive Wikipedian and has spent almost all his time arguing (badly) rather than actually improving Wikipedia. I support this block and strongly advise against any third chances - it's not worth it. --Tango 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this block and commend Guy for having the common sense to see that Merkey's presence was much more of a hindrance than a benefit. His comments showed that he had no interest in following policy and was using every possible opportunity for rather incoherent soapboxing. Blocking him again is no loss to the project. --YFB ¿ 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't get a chance to see
  Wikipedia:Right to Edit. Could someone please undelete it and send it to BJAODN? *** Crotalus *** 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would just be asking for trouble ... I strongly advise against that. --BigDT 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think such trolling should be glorified by BJAODN, though perhaps Uncyclopedia might be interested? Moreschi ^Talk 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uncyclopedia does not use a GFDL-compatible license. Copy from Wikipedia cannot be copied there. At any rate, I don't think anything good can come from restoring this page anywhere ... we don't need a "poke fun at a blocked user's idea" forum. --BigDT 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given what Jeffrey has written on his talk page about possible off-wiki actions and his previous agreements with the foundation, perhaps we should just protect his talk page and let him deal with the foundation by private communication from here on out. There is nothing else us mere wiki-mortals can do here. NoSeptember 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Yall can clean up anything you think should not be there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reading his comments on his talk, I'd say this block was absolutely justified, beyond question. My word. He can talk to the Foundation privately if he so wishes, but until told otherwise, we really don't need him wasting our time here. A couple of real gems: "18 year olds who live in their mom's basement and who are taking a free ride off my money and chat room trolls who talk about inappropriate topics don't tell me when I am right or wrong. In fact, no such concept exists on this site", followed by "community == trolls", and "Never mind, I saw the Noticeboard and the comments from all the trolls and strong arm groups. This block violates just about every assurance from the Foundation. It also interferes with my investments".

Up with this we must not put. For obvious reasons. Moreschi ^Talk 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can handle this without actively taking the piss. Merkey is wrong, the problem is that he does not believe it. We need to find a strategy to get him
  down off the Reichstag so we can let him edit. I don't think anybody here believes he is evil or a troll, just... odd. And that oddness creates a problem. The trouble is, nobody else I can find to talk to about him has the faintest idea how to de-escalate this either. And yes, I have asked Jimmy. Consensus appears to be that we should be nice to him (fine) but not let him bring his battles here (also fine). All suggestions gratefully received. And I think we should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, here or on his Talk as and when we unprotect it. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• While I dont have any solutions myself but I do think that (a) we should unlock his talk page and (b) change the block from indefinite to 24 hours,
  SqueakBox 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not averse to an expiring block, but 24 hours is way too short. A lot of time has been wasted. Maybe the best thing is just to walk away and come back when he's calmed down - he's in email contact with the foundation guys, we'll know soon enough when he's likely to be productive. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW I would recommend a fixed block so he knows when he is going to be unblocked (and I speak from an experience (of being blocked) you dont have). It would be nice to see the talk page unlocked so I and others can leave a message there given he isnt being disruptive there from what I can see,
    SqueakBox 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ther,e now you've proved me wrong. I said cooling off blocks don't work - but with you actually they do, don't they? I remember I blocked you a while back, you handled it with remarkable equanimity. The problem with Merkey, though, is that he is much less self-aware than you are. I think you are commendably aware of your own biases and enthusiasms, and I think that you fundamentally accept things about which Merkey is still in denial. Included among these is the fact that editing Wikipedia is just a hobby, and if the power went out the world would continue to turn. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're probably seeing differently, cuz I see quite a lot of disruption. I can't see any rationale for an unblock. Since being debanned, he has not contributed productively in the slightest, just bounced back and forth between edit wars, ANI, and RFC. Second chances are great, but why a third? Moreschi ^Talk 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Jeffrey opened any threads at rfc (no) or AN/I? I get the impression Guy wants to see Jeffrey contribute constructively and to that extent I am willing to support Guy's actions,

SqueakBox 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean. In a very short space of time he's been the subject of an RFC and plenty of threads at ANI (always a bad sign). We'd all like to see Merkey contribute productively but is this really likely third time around, and does he want to contribute productively anyway (productively meaning playing by the rules, our rules)? Moreschi ^Talk 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Guy -- thanks. The only thing I find more vexing than vandals are editors who come to promote personal agendas. No mere vandal can waste contributors' time on that sort of scale. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Look closely at User:Poindexter Propellerhead's contribution history, created 24 May, with two and only two interests: 1) hundreds of reverts against vandalism, and 2) !voting and commenting against Jeffrey Merkey.[11] Nothing else.Proabivouac 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Look more closely, and you'll find some significant edits. When I'm doing a hundred vandalism reverts a day, I know it's easy for them to get lost in the noise. Also lost in the noise are actions I took against other bad editors, as when I reverted one (now indef blocked) calling their edit "hate speech." I don't single out any editor who has a huge POV axe to grind, and is willing to revert war to get their way. They're all the same to me. I kind of expected this, though, having seen how everyone who ever complained about Merkey's editing was labelled as a bad faith cabal member -- Lulu, Hipocrite, Tom, etc. Think what you will, but I'm going to keep putting in a thousand worthwhile edits a week, and I'm going to keep on complaining when people come here to try and force a POV on the world. Whether Merkey is editing or blocked won't change that a bit. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the block be changed to a month for a

• Cooling-off blocks don't work. He's blocked to stop the drama, when we are confident he won't cause more drama we can unblock him. I have no real opinion on protection of his talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooling-off blocks have worked in the past for many Wikipedians. You stand corrected. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many? Which ones? And this is his second time to be banned...for the same exact reason. Are you saying that there is a realistic chance of him to suddenly change his mind? We might give second chances, but that's pretty much it. The policy is assume good faith, not assume blind faith. —Kurykh 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of editors who have been blocked for various reasons. The blocks were a good cooling-off period. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't work. What in the world do you want him to do? Put something in writing? Make some sort of oath? For some people it takes a little longer for them to understand the rules when no guidance has been given. How much help has he been given? Please provide him with the policies he should read up on and understand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to wait for people to grow up. He has been provided with x number of lists of policies he should read up with, and has refuted them all with his dismissive attitude. If he really wants to start editing constructively (and can prove that he can, will, and remain so), then he can e-mail an administrator, ArbCom member, or Jimbo, and maybe have his block overturned. It's indefinite, not infinite. The indefinite block is essentially telling him that we will not accept him back unless he accepts our terms of editing. But right now, he's only disrupting the encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia's existence is more important than keeping trollish editors in the fold. —Kurykh 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide him with the specific, most helpful policies for him to read to be productive here. Lets move forward on this. Lets start somewhere. Please be specific with your terms. What are your terms? Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy. For him to unconditionally contribute positively to the encyclopedia and the community, without demands or assertions of nonexistent rights and/or benefits. This is a term that you, me, and every editor in good standing accepts, and the only social condition imposed by Wikipedia and the collective community. —Kurykh 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are right on the fact that Wikipedia has a tradition of an open-arm acceptance, but it does not require it to accept those who seek its exploitation and/or destruction. —Kurykh 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? I recommend for you to transfer that to his talk page and put it in bold and tell him to read it over and over again until he understands it thoroughly. And for him to understand what lessons he has learned. Moving forward, he must understand that this is his last chance. He must also understand even if he is correct in a content dispute he must go by consensus and can request for comment on an article and try other avenues. Tigers are welcomed here but they must not growl. Understanding is the key. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG already posted something similar to the above there. However, I still assert that the indefinite block should remain in place. —Kurykh 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not as if this is only Merkey's second block. It's his second indefinite block. Before he earned his first "indefinite" block, he had already been blocked numerous times for shorter periods because of the same sort of behavior. In fact, he had been blocked under a score of sockpuppet accounts back two years ago when he first began active disruption. I know that editors and admins who weren't watching the first rounds of bad behavior want to assume this is a passing mood; but from what I can see, confrontational trolling and unsubstantiated vehement personal beliefs is Merkey's entire life history, both on and off Wikipedia.

Frankly, even Merkey's allegedly polite request to be unblocked contained exactly the same kind of arrogance his subsequent edits showed: First claiming that he has more money than other editors; then claiming (certainly falsely, as well as irrelevant) that he has contributed some huge money to Wikimedia; and finally advancing the fanciful claim that he has "an IQ of 190" as alleged evidence he should have greater rights (btw. if you know how IQ is defined, you know that fewer than 20 people in the USA are at that +6 sigmas). Please, please, please don't give him an Nth chance to make us go through this ordeal again, with a certainty of the same outcome. LotLE×talk 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given that this user's very first block was indefinite, I would support changing to a one-month block unless there is a much clearer indication of the nature of the problem in the RfC. This user clearly currently has a beef with the community and is very angry; I wouldn't take into consideration anything the user is saying in the present angry state; the whole point of a block is to enable a cooling down period to get past anger and allow calm to set in before making decisions. For a first block, I would allow time for a cooling-down period -- a month is plenty for this -- and then give the user an opportunity to decide, calmly, to either play by the rules or not play. I wouldn't block for longer than is necessary for this. I wouldn't indefinitely block as a first block. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing this support in light of user's history of blocks and other trouble when editing under prior user names. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looking back over the block logs, it's not exactly the second time. Three of his IP addresses had a 24-hour, a 1 month, an indefinite and one other unspecified (temporary) block. His other accounts, Gadugi and Waya Sohoni, had a 1-hour, an 8-hour, three 24-hour, a 14-day, and four indefinite blocks. Other accounts which were almost certainly his (Asgaya Gigigei, Sint Holo and PeyoteMan) were also blocked indefinitely, which gives him grand total of 9 temporary and 10 indefinite blocks (counting the two already mentioned).

• • Regarding LotLE's comment that this user has been blocked before: Could you post links to evidence of this? This makes a big difference. The present block log shows only two blocks, one on May 2 resulting in an unblocking after a few hours, and one today, suggesting a medium-duration block has never been tried. If the reality is that this user has had a long history of past blocks under sockpuppet accounts, would it be possible to post evidence of this here and/or under the RfC? I would agree that if this is true my previous responses would be off the mark. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree this issue has been satisfactorily addressed per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2#Is this guy a sockpuppet of a previously banned user? Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with LotLE...enough is enough.--MONGO 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with you completely. MONGO has rewarded an editor who was hounding Mr. Merkey with a barnstar. What is going on here?[12][13] Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sock, get your drawer in order, before coming after mine. I have hounded no one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some thought and propose the following as a "strategy" of sorts:

• Leave the block indefinite for the time being. If we impose a time-specific block and then allow him back with his attitude unchanged, we'll just go through exactly the same palaver in a month or so's time and end up having this debate for a third time.
• If Mr. Merkey emails an admin expressing a fundamental change in his attitude regarding the assumption of bad faith, caballery, conspiracy theories etc. and avowing an intention to adhere rigidly to Wikipedia policies as written (rather than his own interpretation), he could be unblocked. If that were to happen it should probably be on a zero-tolerance probation basis, i.e. one personal attack, edit war, unwarranted content removal etc. and he's reblocked.
• In the mean time, he should be allowed to use a section of his talk page as a sandbox for article editing, conditional on the page being re-protected at the first sign of soapboxing. If he makes reasonable edit proposals at his talk page, they can be enacted at the articles themselves, or proposed for further discussion at the relevant talk page with Jeff allowed to take part in the discussion by proxy. I wouldn't be averse to acting as an intermediary there if that was acceptable to Mr. Merkey.
• I would also suggest that, if they haven't been already, obvious Merkey-baiting accounts such as Al Petrofsky are blocked indef on sight. We do at least owe Jeff the same level of protection from trolling as anyone other editor. That said, we don't need anyone making "troll-watch lists" and Mr. Merkey should be prohibited from making any accusations of trolling whatsoever - established editors should be able to identify troll SPAs without much difficulty, so if a couple of neutral parties are prepared to keep an eyeball out, Jeff should have no need to resort to finger-pointing and personal attacks.
• There should be (at least while these conditions are in effect) a moratorium on RfC, AN(/I), CSN, ArbCom etc. proposals/threads relating to Mr. Merkey. These only seem to serve as troll magnets or venues for argument, so they might as well be eschewed since while he's blocked and only editing his talk page under probation conditions, Jeff can't really do anything that might warrant recourse to any of these processes anyway.

Comments/suggestions welcome. --YFB ¿ 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was Jeff's talk page protected? That strikes me as counter-productive.

Ah, I see now where this is discussed above. Well, it doesn't strike me as a big deal either way, but I'll leave it.

Chick Bowen 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page should be unprotected because it was done without any justification. Lack of response by administrators is compelling. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The justification above was that he was using it to pretty much asail the Foundation for not letting him edit. He has the ability to email the Foundation; so he can ask to have his page unlocked if he agrees to not use the talk page for that purpose. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He just got blocked. I would be pisted too. The reason to block his talk page is still unjustified. I request his talk page be unblocked right away. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its unblocked now,

SqueakBox 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:Kebron is the most obvious. Interests include Groklaw, SCO, Cherokees, and threads against Jeffrey Merkey. Only in the past few days do we see an attempt at camouflage with a number of innocuous but trivial Canada-related edits.[14].
• User:Nyet is another. See how he blithely pretends not to know what is going on here,[15] but earlier wrote this,[16] which Jimbo called trolling.[17] Even the username Nyet intersects with Merkey, recalling a memorable moment in the now-infamous GNAA call (which happened sometime last year - I'm not certain when.)
• User:Poindexter Propellerhead as referenced above.
  

Make no mistake, this is a coordinated - and sophisticated - attack machine. Merkey's not getting away with anything, his problems are all out in the open, but these guys (as Merkey says, you can find them over here) are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute.
Poindexter and Kebron's userboxes, Poindexter's mission statement, and the vast number of camouflage edits speak to the wikisavvy and determination behind this effort to game and exploit the community's assumption of good faith.
No wonder he's paranoid: people are out to get him. He's done a horrible job of distinguishing good-faith editors with good-faith requests for improvement from the trolls which plague him, but then so have we, for these are still among us, participating in this thread.
If protecting Merkey from being stalked, harassed and trolled is to be more than an empty statement of intent, the assumption of good faith for users we've never seen before may have to be a little less forthcoming in Merkey-related threads than it usually (and rightly) is.Proabivouac 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we really need to relax assumptions of good faith at all. There is almost certain to be something up when a new user jumps straight into a user conduct dispute. Whether or not the something justifies blocking varies, but I can't imagine a situation in which someone who truly is new could go straight to railing against another user for their actions. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about all three of those users and was somewhat surprised not to have seen any of them blocked already (particularly Kebron, who is blatant). Al Petrofsky is still blockless, too, despite obviously being here only to spam dispute pages with his accounts of Merkey's past conflicts. "Relaxing AGF" might be putting it too strongly, but there's certainly room for a bit of background checking of those who get involved with Merkey issues seemingly out of the blue. --YFB ¿ 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave Al a block last night, but based on an email conversation with him, I decided to unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote part of one recent SCO post (the remainder is too vile for this noticeboard):

"PWNED!…How come your named account is indef blocked and my SPA account is stall active? Check out user:CatchFork…"[18]Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sickened to realize that my endorsement of the substantial complaints laid forth in the RfC played a part in this hate-filled fellow's orgasm of sadism.Proabivouac 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does an 'Anti-Merkey' cabal exist?

The duration of the block is ludicrous. This is totally unacceptable. I recommend to Guy to stop playing with the buttons. Here is a link I find interesting to read.[19] Come to your own conclusions what is really happening here. Was it coordinated? The above new evidence provided makes everything a bit more clear. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• And I recommend to you to read the discussions. Indefinite <> permanent, it means until things have calmed down. I am actively engaging with Mr. Merkey by email, in pursuit of a resolution. There is no point setting an arbitrary expiry date, that would be nonsensical under the circumstances, but I will unblock when I think the time is right, and that judgement is completely dependent on the conversations I am having with Merkey and others right now. If you are hearing a subliminal and not wholly complimentary message underneath that, congratulations on your perspicacity. "Playing with the tools" my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no consensus for the controversial block. Therefore, the resolution is an unblock. One administrator cannnot overide consensus. The community has spoken on this. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merkey has posted a request to be unblocked, and the discussion on the unblock request is on ANI. SirFozzie 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if we deleted the RfC page relating to Merkey and its talkpage? The initiating party, User:Hipocrite, has said at User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Bye, that he wants nothing further to do with the matter; several of the threads were poisoned by the above-mentioned attack accounts; Merkey's own comments were, to say the least, unhelpful to himself or to the project; and nothing useful was resolved. I suggest that deleting the pages would be a good step for everyone. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to deletion, so long as it doesn't mean that we end up arguing over the extent of Merkey's unhelpfulness at a later date. Archival with an appropriate closing note (much like what you've posted here) might be a more transparent way of bringing an end to the debate, but I don't consider deletion OTT. The RfC quickly got mired in pointless squabbling and personal attacks, so it's hardly going to be very useful to anyone in future. --YFB ¿ 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We can blank it, but deletion would be a bad idea, I think. There are issues there which remain unaddressed. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The individual behind User:CatchFork claims to have another account which has recently passed RfA, and declares his intent to use this position to harass Merkey:[20] See also this response:[21]
This SCO noticeboard has proven to be a font of frank admissions. The very strongest action is warranted: a logged checkuser involving all the anti-Merkey socks, and if necessary a comparison of User:CatchFork to recent successful RfA candidates.
We also have a threat to attack Merkey's bio: "I think the first thing I'll do is offer to edit your personal bio article under good faith to reflect this last hilarious meltdown and your completely ridiculous history with wikipedia."
As if this all weren't enough, there is the claim that this is being decided on IRC:"Your name is mud there and the admins are circulating reports of your actions on IRC."Proabivouac 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that liberal use of checkuser would be an excellent idea. I recall an allegation that the poster who is claiming to have an admin here was identified with an account (now indef blocked) that was blatantly trolling Merkey, and I would not be AT ALL surprised to find out that he's been half a dozen or more other such accounts. We need to clear the air around here, and checkuser is the surest way to do it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a self request.Proabivouac 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, checkuser me too! I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same. He also said that he was using IPs he got from his university, so I'd like someone to verify that I'm on private, unproxied DSL connection. The only way to stop the finger-pointing is to weed out the actual bad apples, so let's get it done. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I had been wondering what your problem was with my fighting vandalism, but when I read the links you posted I realized that you must be taking me for that poster who said that he'd been doing the same."

Please. I have no problem with you fighting vandalism, except that per contribs and context it's obviously camouflage. Come back to me after a month of this and I might apologize. As of now, to put it quite plainly, I think your claim to have been lurking all this time and contributing thousands of useful edits, but just now opening an account, to be a lie. Your actions are designed to deceive the community's standard diagnostics of good-faith editors vs. attack SPAs, and your posts here aim to exploit the community's assumption of good faith.Proabivouac 08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, but those posts go a long way towards creating an air of paranoia, so I can understand why you do. And I don't mind waiting a month for my apology. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Poindexter Propellerhead broken any WP policies by arguing on a RfC and here? That's all his Merkey related activity so far (and hopefully it will stop here as the Merkey is blocked indefinitely). Please note that even if Poindexter Propellerhead came here because of Merkey, he is doing useful work. This way we may have acquired another productive user. Now when (hopefully) Mekey vanished from our radar screens, Poindexter Propellerhead has an opportunity to do only the anti-vandal job he says he likes. Maybe even start editing the articles? Let's assume good will here. -Friendly Neighbour 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am compelled to observe, Friendly Neighbor, that your very first contributions to Wikipedia were related to Mr. Merkey.[22] I do not presume to judge anything else you've done here, as I've not surveyed the whole of your contributions, but from that fact alone, the appearance of a vigorous and longstanding conspiracy - and I use this term advisedly - against Mr. Merkey becomes stronger and stronger at every turn.Proabivouac 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a long reply on your Talk page because this section has been archived just after your edit. A short abstract goes here: you did not get the point. I wrote the above exactly because my account is an example that coming here because of Merkey may lead to productive work. And Merkey tends to create "enemies" on every article he edits so one needs any WP:CABAL to explain why so many users are interested in his future here. Let's stop the witch hunt, especially as the real anti-Merkey trolls (yes, I admit that such do exist) usually stop editing WP when Merkey is not an issue here. -Friendly Neighbour 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So, in short, anti-Merkey attack-only accounts are potentially valuable future contributors who should be encouraged to stay.Proabivouac 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, be reasonable. I explicitly wrote about users who are doing useful work. One purpose personal attack accounts are not useful by definition. -Friendly Neighbour 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you came here to begin with to attack Merkey, and your most recent actions were to endorse the RfC against him, right alongside none other than myself, [23] and now to post here in support of an attack SPA. I don't know what happened between then and now; I suppose I'll have to check.Proabivouac 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not to attack. Rather because I was worried by what he was doing to this open source project (and some other too but this is irrelevant here). I never attacked him, unless by "attack" you mean comments on RfCs or reporting his sockpuppets after he was banned. If you want, please dig to find one personal attack or revert war by me against any of his many accounts. You will not find one. And if you want to continue thi discussion, please take it off WP:AN as it does not belong here. I started a thread on your Talk page. Please reply there if you wish. -Friendly Neighbour 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever else happens, I will personally raise an arbcom case against any of those listed above who pursues any kind of harassment against Merkey on Wikipedia. And I have every reason to believe it will be accepted. I strongly advocate a zero-tolerance approach to trolling of Merkey, who handles trolling even worse than I do (which is saying something). If these individuals identified above are serious about contributing to the encylopaedia then that's fine, but leave Jeff Merkey alone. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom should not even be needed. Any account not used to advance the project should be blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True and correct. I'm simply afraid that reporting a Merkey sock (if one appears) will now lead to accusations of Merkey trolling. I never trolled him, unless you count commenting on RfCs or reporting some of his multiple socks on ANI (I'm talking of spring 2006) as trolling. I may sit quietly seeing Wikipedia rules broken (being afraid to speak up) but it is not what should happen here according to our own rules. -Friendly Neighbour 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A report made in good faith, without hyperbole, calmly and with cited diffs, does not constitute trolling. Provided that you are then content to let others make the final call. Like I said above, as long as you are seen to be here to build the encyclopaedia, you should be fine. Just be sure that any personal antipathy you may harbour to any particular editor is not evident in your reports, should such reports become necessary. Thank you for asking for clarification, are we on the same page now? Guy (Help!) 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We've been for a long time. My "Merkey anger" melted long time ago. Now, I find it simply sad that he cannot grow up. If we could find a way for him to edit here without disrupting the project, I would not mind. However, the recent experiment was not a good portent for his future on Wikipedia. -Friendly Neighbour 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is here to fail to scatter magic pixie dust over the situation! Poindexter, people look askance at you because you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian who's magically reappeared out of nowhere in a controversy, so people are obviously going to wonder who the hell you are. CatchFork is trolling us, well done. Everyone else, please STOP trying to poke Jeff with sticks. You will not advance discussion in any way - David Gerard 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Guy above. I started investigating and collecting information for a dispute resolution case, but was accused of making an "enemy list" of people "whose only offense is disagreeing with me", by an administrator no less. So I stopped. There are a lot more accounts like those mentioned above, including sleepers registered a long time ago with a handful of edits that magically became active when Jeff was unblocked and follow him around. I'm saddened that more admins aren't aware of this, are unwilling to get involved, and actively prevent efforts to address it or prepare dispute resolution cases. --Duk 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that Jeff does have a tendency to be involved in conflict. He's famous and controversial, and there are lots of people across the net who are really upset at him for various reasons. (Note that I'm not addressing here whether that's justified or not - only saying that they are sincere.) As such, some are popping up now that it's an issue because they're quite sincere about it. Again, I suggest the best thing to do is to leave it - Jeff will likely stay blocked while the problems persist, and RFCs etc aren't going to help matters for anyone - David Gerard 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. However, it's these difficult cases where we need to work harder to create a fair atmosphere, no matter which editor happens to be a target. In fact, the more unpopular an editor is, the more we have to be careful that prejudices don't interfere. The easy path is just to let these hoards of angry people post never ending ad homineums, personal attacks and links to unrelated off-site attacks. I've seen a few people with the simple minded and very wrong attitude that protecting Jeff from outrageous attacks equates to supporting his misbehavior, or being "for" him and "against" everyone else. Just because an admin blocks trolls pestering Jeff, or any other editor for that matter, does not mean that that admin is "Jeff's pittbull". --Duk 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed in general with Duk. I would keep in mind that there is a good possibility exists that the user at the top of this section who is blocked for trolling is just trying to make more work for us, and that there is no substance to the threat. Considering the amount of eyes this has generated, I'm fairly sure that any subtle vandalism will be caught. SirFozzie 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  To clarify my earlier statements, they were general comments and not specific to the Anti-Merky RFA claim (thanks noting, SirFozzie). --Duk 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)