Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2

message: Assume there's there's this employee at a company. Now, this person has contributed substantially to the company. He's done some great work, and has gotten the company $500,000 worth of research grants. This employee only has one problem: he is disruptive. Nobody likes working with him, because he isn't very civil in disagreements, and he accuses anyone who points out that he's incivil of being part of a group that doesn't like him because of some things he's done outside the company. Now, should this company retain the person, despite the fact that he is causing the other employees lots of stress, just because he's done some good things for the company too? Or should they fire him, so that other people have a better environment to work in? -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt try to answer such a question without financial details of the company, how many employees it hires, how much it needs./relies on the $500,000 etc. Often the guy who puts $500,000 is the boss and if the employees dont like him they know where to go. So such a hypothetical question is, IMO, unanswerable, SqueakBox 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I neglected to mention a few things. He's not in senior management, so the power to kick him out easily does exist, if enough people who have been with the company for a while want him gone (and this company is, amazingly, set up so that employees can actually complain about bad bosses). The other questions are subjective, so I won't specify those. I'll just note that other employees, while not necessarily getting large grants, still provide value to the company, which may be worth more than the 500 grand from one person. -Amarkov moo! 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well on that basis I dont agree with you, SqueakBox 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me explain with an analogy why giving special status to financial contributors is a horrible idea. 

message: Moved from the main context as questions not a coherent outside view. --pgk 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all the money I have invested in the Foundation and Wikipedia Development at WMG.  It's none of your business how its divided.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, just so everything can be put in it's proper context, when you say you have donated $500,000 to Wikipedia, you mean that you have actually invested that in another company?  This seems contradictory.  I read the above as saying that you have not given Wikipedia any actual cash at all.  Is this correct? ChurchOfTheOtherGods 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by [[User:ChurchOfTheOtherGods|ChurchOfTheOtherGods]]

message: I refused to enter into mediation with Merkey because I did not see, and continue to not see, any dispute between myself and Merkey regarding content. My disputes with him are soley regarding his atrocious editing habits.
Wikipedia review is full of shit. I suspect Tom Harrison was totally unaware of this RFC. Rootology and his fellow 9-11 truthers believe that there is a grand conspiracy that I am a part of to supress their truthiness on Wikipedia. They are wrong. In any case, if there was a grand conspiracy, why wouldn't I just have Tom block Merkey for life? It's not like anyone would unblock him, at this point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last statement is unverified opinion, SqueakBox 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So? It's also true. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding wikipedia review, my refusal to mediate 

message: Users who support
#support. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactored sup[port and oppose comments from JVM's second comment 

message: #::Alright, you get another chance.  Contignent that you discuss issues on my talk page before taking any actions or you yourself engaging in revert warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reviewed some very disturbing materials related to Hipocrite over at Wikipedia review with a lot of background.  Based on these materials and admissions by an insider, it appears this Rfc and other items were instigated by Tom Harrison and other members of an outside group as an abuse of process mechanism.  I will accept Sir Fozzy's recommendations, but I have no opinion about this user anymore, good or bad.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terribly sorry for being so pedantic, are you saying that Tom Harrison is part of a group that is bent on abusing process with regards to you, in cahoots with Hipocrite, and that Tom was the one behind this RFC? It would be good to be absolutely clear on this point. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments speak for themselves.  I do not know any of these accounts listed other than Hipocrite.  I also do not understand all of the slang words they are using, but the text indicates there is an outside group that uses a messaging technology to coordinate 3/1 1/1/1RR attacks and other activity.  None of it sounds like something legitimate editors should be doing.  There appear to be many "editing for consideration" schemes which violate the anyone can edit standard there by these various groups strong arming users for favors in exchange for right to edit.  Users are individuals, not groups.  The materials can be reviewed here  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Messaging technology" is it? Then it must be you I have to thank for the absence of one of the carrier pigeons. I knew something was wrong when Nelly was overdue; she had always been so reliable. Get in line behind the 911-truthers, Black-helicopter-spotters, and pseudo-science cranks, and I'll conspire against you when I get a minute. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we are all acting in bad faith as members of a Cabal, despite the fact that I've never had private communications with any other poster in this RfC.  One of Alanyst's suggestions, which I felt was very reasonable, was that Mr. Merkey should refrain from making accusations of stalking and conspiracy against good faith editors, yet here I find myself among the accused, by implication, a mere day later.  If Alanyst's argument needed any more support, certainly this is it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not respond to threats very well.  I don't know why a lot of admins make them and believe they themselves are not required to be civil.  I am here because its the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".  You did not ban me, the arbcom did not ban me, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees did due to legal issues related to off-wikipedia activities.  I was unbanned after I concluded the matter, with Brad Patrick and Danny involved at every step -- as friends.  I want you to consider yourself recused from dealing with edits or me if you are going to post threats.  Have another admin do it.  Deal with Duk on it or SirFozzie.  If you threaten me again, I'll file an Rfc to have you desysoped.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactored threaded discussion 

message: #* He does not henceforth call anyone a troll, sockpuppet, or make any discernibly bad-faith assumption of any Wikipedia editor, including anon accounts, unless and until he has made a proper Checkuser request that results in a finding that such a label is warranted, or unless an outside administrator concludes that the account is a single-purpose account aimed at harassing him;
#* He makes no unsourced edits to any article, even if he promises to provide sources later;
#* He answers challenges to his edits or arguments with on-topic arguments, and does not attack the challenger's motives or make wild claims that are irrelevant to the discussion;
#* He refrains completely from implying or stating that his edits are to be preferred on the basis of his contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation, or based on his ancestry, or IQ, or any other factor besides the edits' encyclopedic value and compliance with WP policies;
#* He agrees to be banned immediately if he is in violation of any of these conditions, as judged by an established dispute resolution process.
#:::I further endorse Alanyst's suggestions. Gwen Gale 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reviewed some very disturbing materials related to Hipocrite over at Wikipedia review with a lot of background.  Based on these materials and admissions by an insider, it appears this Rfc and other items were instigated by Tom Harrison and other members of an outside group as an abuse of process mechanism.  I will accept Sir Fozzy's recommendations, but I have no opinion about this user anymore, good or bad.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terribly sorry for being so pedantic, are you saying that Tom Harrison is part of a group that is bent on abusing process with regards to you, in cahoots with Hipocrite, and that Tom was the one behind this RFC? It would be good to be absolutely clear on this point. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments speak for themselves.  I do not know any of these accounts listed other than Hipocrite.  I also do not understand all of the slang words they are using, but the text indicates there is an outside group that uses a messaging technology to coordinate 3/1 1/1/1RR attacks and other activity.  None of it sounds like something legitimate editors should be doing.  There appear to be many "editing for consideration" schemes which violate the anyone can edit standard there by these various groups strong arming users for favors in exchange for right to edit.  Users are individuals, not groups.  The materials can be reviewed here  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Messaging technology" is it? Then it must be you I have to thank for the absence of one of the carrier pigeons. I knew something was wrong when Nelly was overdue; she had always been so reliable. Get in line behind the 911-truthers, Black-helicopter-spotters, and pseudo-science cranks, and I'll conspire against you when I get a minute. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we are all acting in bad faith as members of a Cabal, despite the fact that I've never had private communications with any other poster in this RfC.  One of Alanyst's suggestions, which I felt was very reasonable, was that Mr. Merkey should refrain from making accusations of stalking and conspiracy against good faith editors, yet here I find myself among the accused, by implication, a mere day later.  If Alanyst's argument needed any more support, certainly this is it. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not respond to threats very well.  I don't know why a lot of admins make them and believe they themselves are not required to be civil.  I am here because its the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".  You did not ban me, the arbcom did not ban me, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees did due to legal issues related to off-wikipedia activities.  I was unbanned after I concluded the matter, with Brad Patrick and Danny involved at every step -- as friends.  I want you to consider yourself recused from dealing with edits or me if you are going to post threats.  Have another admin do it.  Deal with Duk on it or SirFozzie.  If you threaten me again, I'll file an Rfc to have you desysoped.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditions proposed by [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 

message: I believe this is a form of bribery... I will give you money if you give me my way
"Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has pledged to donate and/or raise through venture groups $10,000,000.00 in donations to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on removal of restrictive processes, cabals, and procedures that require consideration from the general public for rights to edit the English Wikipedia contrary to the Wikimedia Foundations policy that "anyone can edit" in a free environment without an atmosphere of fear. This user will initiate the fundraising event when in his opinion the English Wikipedia has come into COMPLETE compliance with Wikimedia Foundation policies stated to the General Public . "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=133474525
--Kebron 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disappointed with yours over at Wikipedia Watch as well, but it does not impact my faith in people or the project.   I have to say, this has been helpful and eye opening experience.  When I first engaged with Wikipedia is was something "fun" to do and I enjoyed it on that basis.  Because of that I tended to let go of myself in that amazing feeling of freedom.   There is another side of me, though, one that is cold and still, the side that deals in business issues.  There were many mysteries here that I now understand completely.  The good news here is that cold side of me is a neutral side, no emotion either good or bad about anyone o any subject -- just level.  Given that, I am prepared for the next phase.   My main objective here now is growth -- finanacial growth.  I would like to see the disconnections between the external messages of the project and Foundation eventually converge.  Hopefully, that will happen.  ni-go-di-s-ge-s-di. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: His outrageous, disruptive, and divisive allegations of blackmail, extortion, etc. might be easily dismissed by some here, but this quote in particular: "Some of them donate or invest in Wikipedia Projects each year many times the life savings of an ordinary person" certainly does nothing to help build consensus. - Nyet 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offering wikipedia money isnt bribery. What mind set really thinks that? Do we actually want to dioscourage serious wikipedia financial contributors. Unfortunately plenty of people in the world resent the rich and I am wondering if we are seeing some of that mentality here, SqueakBox 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only posting this as context: Bribery and/or resentment of wealth have aught to do with this discussion. There is nothing in WP written policy about contributors being treated any differently from anyone else as to behaviour on this public wiki. How many skilled editors are going to donate their time if money can, in effect, buy unscholarly edits? WP's leadership has apparently, informally cut Jeffrey Vernon Merkey lots of slack in the past. That's understandable (and ok with me by the bye) but there are bounds to this kind of thing and IMHO it's going to be up to Wikipedia's leadership to decide where those bounds fall. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is openly asking for "special treatment," is all. At least he's being straightforward about it. Gwen Gale 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldnt suggest we treat Jeffrey different from other users either, SqueakBox 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bribery 

message: I do not believe that I need respond further here, as the threshold for an RFC has not been meet according to established standards.  I appreciate SqueakBox's comments.  Other comments about various folks being "disappointed" I am at a loss to respond to.   I am not controllable by anyone other than me, and that's the same situation I think just about everyone on earth is in -- we control ourselves.  That being said, I am here to help -- and I can help.    I think I understand the concerns raised by Hipocrite, and I have been pushed into my business side by this and at the cold, distant, and objective place before I make "the kill" in business deals.  It's clear I need to either buy out the foundation, or put in enough resources to move it away from this hostage model it's in with the various communities.  Either way the next few months of press releases and fundraisers are going to be fun, and I hope yield positive results for everyone involved.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing statements? I don't think it's you that gets to close this, Jeff, no matter how much money you promise to raise at some future point to be decided entirely by yourself. The threshold for an RfC most certainly has been met, it needed 2 editors to show where they have tried, and failed, to resolve a dispute with you, and within 48 hours of the RfC being raised. That, as you will notice, has been done, and well within the time period requested, with comments from both User:Hipocrite and User:alanyst. Frankly, I'm surprised that more editors didn't support this, but there's still time. The outside views are almost unanimous in stating that you need to work on your behaviour. You yourself agreed to User:SirFozzies comments, and then almost instantly started demanding that users "stay away from you". Your behaviour is disruptive, Jeff, and your attitude makes it impossible for other editors to work with you. Accept that, and maybe you can start to change. If you don't accept that, you will probably end up being banned again.77.176.245.163 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing Statements 

message: There is no issue to meditate. Hipocrite claims Merkey is disruptive, Merkey claims he isn't (although he has not actually done this yet, I assume that he doesn't consider himself disruptive...). Meditation only works if there's room for compromise, and nobody would be satisfied with the compromise of "Merkey is only half disruptive". -Amarkov moo! 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Well, I like the outcome.  The RFC says I can have trolls blocked.  I do not think any of the trolls will be around much any more.  Since the trolls were the source of disruption, then it sounds like the issues are resolved.  The users who filed the Rfc will not have much contact with me either based on this outcome, which is perfect.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolls can be blocked regardless of the RfC. The issue here is your behavior, not theirs. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yawn...  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you mean mediation, not meditation, though it's possible that "a state of concentrated attention on some object of thought or awareness" could help too... *Dan T.* 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not catch that at first.  Wow Dan, good eyes! Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol. Maybe we just speak a strange dialect over where I live, but I've mever heard the word "mediation"; I've always used "meditation" for that. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why refusing meditation is irrelevant 

message: It's humorous seeing Merkey try to insinuate he's contributed some large amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation.  I am certain he has not done so.  Perhaps he's made a token gift; more likely nothing at all.  It sounds like the usual bluster he goes on about to try to puff up his own importance.  Similarly with his attempts to claim that he's widely influential among... whomever.
In any case, even if he had contributed money to the project, that is what it is; it has no bearing whatsoever on letting trolls (like Merkey) disrupt content articles.  While I've been inactive on Wikipedia for the last seven months or so (job matters and all), I still think it is a great shame that someone decided to lift the permanent ban that Merkey so well earned himself (repeatedly).  WP would simply be better if it did not allow this contributor to edit any pages. LotLE×talk 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should ban vandals not serious contributors like Jeffrey. Regardless of whether he has or hasnt donated money he should be welcomed here as a valuable contributor so I applaud his un blocking. We should be helping him become a good editor bnopt wanting to see him re-blocked, as with every good faith editor, IMO, SqueakBox 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A serious contributor does not make fanciful claims and fail to back them up when challenged about them.  A serious contributor does not claim special privileges for editing or ownership of a particular article because they think they are more qualified than others.  A serious contributor does not ignore consensus whenever it goes contrary to his vision of How Things Ought to Be.  A serious contributor does not immediately launch into edit wars and all sorts of WP policy violations (WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS) after having been granted another chance to show good behavior after having been banned once already.  A serious contributor ignores provocations by trolls, or else calmly works through the established dispute resolution processes with the aid of neutral parties.  A serious contributor makes sure he understands WP policy and is willing to be governed by it through the community process, and is quick to correct his behavior if he is notified that he is in violation of policy.  In my opinion, Merkey has demonstrated that he is not a serious contributor.  alanyst /talk/ 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't need to figure out, or agree on, whether he's trying to contribute constructively.  If his behavior is disruptive, that's all we need to know.  Friday (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tall tales about large monies 

message: but Merkey's hopefully an ally on the Mountain Meadows massacre pages and I have only admiration for his appropriate advocacies there. --Justmeherenow 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I was asked to comment here

message: With some trepidation, I brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.3Csigh.3E_Merkey.27s_edit_warring_again, and UncleG recommended I bring it here.  As I am presenting a different dispute from Hipocrite, I am placing it on the talk page.  If it belongs on the project page, feel free to let me know or to move it.
The dispute between Mr. Merkey and I is based on our interpretations of WP:V.  Mr. Merkey's view is that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)).  He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page).  He considered mediation as an option here, but in the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely.  Having done so (much to his ire, based on his recent edit summaries to Cherokee, for instance here), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this.  This conflict makes it very hard to edit the Cherokee article, although the dispute does not lessen Mr. Merkey's past positive contribution to the article.
Given Mr. Merkey's refusal to go through dispute resolution even after a deliberate discussion on the matter and on dispute resolution itself, I am not sure what course of action I should take or request be taken.  My issue is not with unrelated comments on Mr. Merkey's talk or user page, nor with his continuing issues with trolling and accusing others of trolling.  It is, as Akhilleus said at ANI, about his odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Except for his refusal to enter into any dispute resolution channel, these are not reasons to "ship out" Mr. Merkey.  However, a number of users, including TriNotch, PFLY, and myself are interested in adding material to the article that does not satisfy Mr. Merkey's standards of WP:V, and we are reticent to act, a state of affairs that hopefully changes soon. Thanks for your consideration. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related, but different, dispute with smmurphy 

message: Needless to say, when people believe something strong enough, it can become a self-fulilling Prophecy.  If of all the truths a person can embrace, if you set one truth abve all others and worship it as the center of your existence, its becomes a falsehood, and you a fanatic.  Consider this (along with the fact that the person who was involved in disputes with Novell 11 years ago no longer exists -- there is a different person here today than then). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of like WP:CABAL. Tom Harrison Talk 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that an admission. I saw the materials on Wikipedia Review and that is the basis for my belief.  An Admission by an insider is disturbing to say the least. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link I provided to WP:CABAL and my reply to your earlier accusation above and draw your own conclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the link.  In the absence of other materials I would agree with you, looking for enemies under every bush may just create them.  However, there are other materials and admissions to review, and they are somewhat disturbing to me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Fulfilling Prophecies 

message: There are various problems with it, but by far the most glaring is citing exposés on Wikipedia Review as if they are reliable. Why a site well known for attacking Wikipedia at every opportunity would be reliable in this context, I'm not sure. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only referring to the materials.  They describe activities that legitimate editors should not be doing, to say the least.  I don't know Tom Harrison or these other users, so I have no point of reference other than the statements made by this user at WR.  The documents speak for themselves.  Perhaps Cabal is the wrong word.  "Other Group" seems less charged as a statement. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Other Group".  The materials speak for themselves. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't. The fact that many people dislike disruptive activities does not mean they are part of an organized group to get rid of people. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merkey's statement 

message: I'd like to ask Merkey to explain why he finds my statement absurd. I'm truly curious. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Digging into a hole".  "Getting deeper and deeper".  Deeper into what?  The truth about what goes on around here? Yeah, you are right about that -- digging around here and at Wikipedia Review is discouraging when it involves witch hunts and dogpiling.  It's like digging near a septic tank -- the deeper you dig, the worse it smells... Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amarkov's statement 

message: Just as a FYI, . I do support this block, sadly. SirFozzie 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] has been indefinitely blocked 

message: I have no idea whether Merkey really is a big contributer to the Wikimedia Foundation or not, or whether he really is being harassed by other people in the outside world, but I will for purposes of this discussion assume that both claims are true. It seems to me that having a record of contribution to the Foundation bears some analogy to the policy on administrators "occassional lapses of judgment are tolerated" -- that is, there may be some additional presumption of goodwill and willingness to believe that one is inclined to have the Foundation's interests at heart and resulting inclination towards leniency -- but whatever this additional presumption may be it applies only to isolated incidents and is totally overcome by a systematic, regular pattern. Similarly, having outside tormentors, if what Merkey says is true, does tend to make people angry and results in poor judgment, even in people who might otherwise show level-headedness and good judgment. My review of the above incidents suggests that Merkey's anger towards whatever legitimate difficulties he has experienced may be too diffuse -- too inclined to spill over into anyone who disagrees with him -- and this creates an intolerable situation for the community, including innocent and legitimate fellow editors who merely happen to disagree, that no amount of gratitude for contributions or sympathy for difficulties can overcome. 
That said, I am not inclined to believe that a pemanent ban is the appropriate sanction at this time. The reason is that it may be possible for a user in a situation like Merkey, if he has the discipline to do it, to be able to focus his rage sufficiently so that it does not spill over to the community as a whole. It can be done. The odds are not great, but I recommend a course of action to see if it's followed, and a permanent ban only if it isn't. The course would include a temporary block -- perhaps a month -- to allow a cooling down period, plus a serious discussion on what the community can do to make sure Merkey is not disrupted or trolled on Wikipedia. We won't be able to do anything like what he appears to have intitially asked for. We can't give him admin powers, and we certainly can't block people on an enemies list or anything like that. But we can enforce our incivility policies and ensure he is not out-and-out trolled, and perhaps he can live with a few difficulties. We also have to enforce our policies regarding editing; the fact that he's been victimized doesn't give him a free pass to focus on his point of view here. In any event a few weeks of calm may enable him to focus more calmly on the situation and perhaps we'll find we can work something out. I'd be optimistic to think that it's even likely that such an approach will work, but it's possible that it will work, and I also don't think a one-month block followed by a review would be an excessive loss given that graduated blocks are standard Wikipedia policy and the expected normal course which should deviated from only in the most unusual circumstances such as vandalism-only accounts, which this account clearly isn't. I know User:JzG has dealt with many difficult situations in the past including situations where wikipedia editors have faced trolling IRL; Sometimes it's possible for people to seem incredibly angry in the moment, then calm down and work things out later. This might not be one of those cases, but there is enough of a possibility that it could be that I'd propose a two-step approach rather than a permanent ban now. In any event I would inclined to see his current demands, unreasonable as they are, as reactions to his current situation, in which he doubtless feels threatened and cornered, rather than having a permanent character. Let's see how things are in a few weeks. If things haven't improved, we can ban him then and won't have lost much. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the block logs for these IDs and IPs, that will add another 16 blocks to the 2 you know about:  Gadugi, Waya Sohoni, Asgaya Gigagei, Sint Holo, PeyoteMan, 67.137.28.189, 67.137.28.187, 67.177.35.222. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by Shirahadasha 

message: Am repreating the following comments previously added:
::Look at the block logs for these IDs and IPs, that will add another 16 blocks to the 2 you know about:  Gadugi, Waya Sohoni, Asgaya Gigagei, Sint Holo, PeyoteMan, 67.137.28.189, 67.137.28.187, 67.177.35.222. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know that this is the case? I've looked up a few of these and don't see references to sockpuppet findings, suspected or confirmed. Have these gone through a sockpuppet check? Is this information established by the regular channels or is it just rumor or surmisal? If this individual has in fact previously been banned from Wikipedia as (for example) User:Sint Holo and is coming back as a sockpuppet, there should be no need for a community RfC and our time is being wasted -- the sock should just be permanently blocked under WP:SOCK, no further discussion. But reference to sockpuppetry isn't even part of the RfC evidence. Since this would cinch the matter, could you or someone  link to a sock file, checkuser finding or similar hard evidence? I think it's very important to make clear one way or the other whether this is or is not a sock of a previously banned editor.  Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether I was just lucky, or if there are a lot of these sorts of things to find, but I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Gadugi without much looking, and it covers all of those addresses, as well as one I overlooked, PeyoteMan.  The checkuser requests were apparently rendered moot by all of the addresses already having been blocked, as well as by several of the socks in question already having admitted to being Merkey. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad you like my userboxes.  I gave up on anonymous editing in large part because there are always some people around who abuse editing privileges, and I have always thought it kind of questionable for an anonymous IP to comment on such things.  Merkey is one of several accounts that were rubbing me the wrong way lately, but the others (BalanceRestored comes right to mind, the name is too ironic to forget quickly) have already been indefinitely blocked without significant dissent.  I only made it to this page because resolving the matter has dragged on for so long. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you to point us to some examples of these contributions?Proabivouac 04:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this guy a sockpuppet of a previously banned user? 

message: Has Jeffrey Vernon Merkey truly brought legal action against wikipedia as stated on the talk page and alluded to here? If so, this entire discuss is a moot point, is it not? -Visorstuff 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he has not. WAS 4.250 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. That is a very big accusation for Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal action