Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Proposed decision

message: Since Kirill has put up some proposed decisions, and one of those involves banning me for a year, I have a question.  If the ban passes, does it take effect immediately after the majority vote, or do I get a short amount of time to "put my affairs in order," so to speak?  That would include putting up a "long wikibreak" message on my user and/or user talk pages, plus a link to what I hope will become my good work on Wikibooks.
Which leads me to the next question.  Would such a ban affect my participation in other WMF projects, particularly Wikibooks?  While going over my watchlist, I saw a reference to a broken link in the Atmel AVR article.  And I fixed it, followed it, and found a section of a wikibook that needs improvement, per the tags.  So even if I am banned from Wikipedia, will I still be able to help improve Wikibooks, or would the ban cover all WMF projects?  Thanks. Pfagerburg 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a majority of Arbitrators vote, someone will make a motion to close (at the bottom of the page).  24 hours is usually the minimum span between making the motion and a clerk closing the case.  (Sometimes cases take a long time to close, as Arbitrators may disagree on remedies and offer counter-proposals for consideration.)  When the clerk closes the case any blocks called for would be put in place.  Action on the english language Wikipedia does not affect a user's participation in other projects, or even other language Wikipedias. Thatcher131 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  As I continue to monitor the case, I will pay special attention to the motion to close.  If it looks like I will be banned from English Wikipedia, I'll clean up preemptively at that point. Pfagerburg 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher131 correctly describes the procedure, and as the clerk for this case I will follow it, including allowing the 24 hours between the motion to close first being proposed and implementing the closure and any blocks (unless otherwise directed by the arbitrators). A caveat is that any editors who engage in misconduct during that interval may be blocked sooner, but I hope that would not become an issue. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify ban if imposed 

message: I was shocked to see this disappear from the "Evidence" heading already and then jump into voting. hbdragon88 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa 

message: I have cleaned up the talk page and user page for this account, and my affairs are in order and am ready when the executioner comes.  Please do not place any notices in this account or pages, I would prefer the history and talk pages be deleted if possible.  Banning notices will not be taken kindly and are unnecessary in my case.  I will simply go and not return.  Also, please desysop my other accounts on the Native American Wikipedia's.  Given the situation, I think it would be best if I avoid all Wikimedia sites since there may be contention over the placement of any banning notices associated with my name.  Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your waiver of notice of the final decision is noted. With regard to administrator status on other Wikimedia projects, your request should be placed on the request for permissions page on Meta wiki for action by a steward. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not have sufficient interest to visit the pages.  At any rate, I am certain they will be removed soon without requesting it directly.   Thanks.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account Cleanup 

message: I added a proposal at the workshop page, could you look at it (sorry, just worried it get may overlooked if since it's on voting phase already)? Kwsn(Ni!) 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 

message: and Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere. The users being banned in this case have disrupted Wikipedia by bringing outside issues on to Wikipedia. They are all being banned to stop the disruption. FloNight 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wording of the "Wikimedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere" principle, which has been adapted from another case, the words "other Wikimedia projects" should be changed to "other websites" to be more directly applicable here. Newyorkbrad 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FloNight 15:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for stating what I already suspected.  You ban the victim of stalking and harassment in hope the other parties will leave as well.   That's what I thought was going on here.  I think it would be prudent to state this in the proceedings and remove the other flimsy and matchstick causes listed (since there were never any legal threats).   I would advise changing the proceedings now since as it stands with this admisson, the proceedings may be libel and defamation and violate WP:BLP.  Just a suggestion.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really... they are banning the perpetrators of bad behavior, no matter which side they're on in the various fights.  The fact that some of them may also be the victims of others' bad behavior is irrelevant. *Dan T.* 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a battleground...

message: I moved my flights to Germany to tommorrow morning and will be gone for about two weeks.  I will be back in the US August 10.   I expect this matter will be closed by then.  Several points before I am blocked and this matter closed.  Dan's comments lead me to post this statement.  This will be my last statement here until I take the steps to address this issues from the various groups including this one.
I have not taken legal actions for the past two years to stop these people from their continued disruption because of the WP:NLT policy.  I was informed that any legal actions to address this situation would result in a ban.  As a result, I have had to endure an enormous level of harassment both on and off wiki as a result.  The problem in this case is that we have criminal conduct on the part of these other parties pursuant to the Utah Annotated Code and Federal Law.  Given these facts, this community has been a player in the matter using undue influence to prevent me from taking the necessary action.  The community has failed completely to address the problem and now we have an admission from one of the arbitors they are instituting a ban simply to make everyone go away and that the matters discussed are illusionary in order to justify it.  This is essense means my reluctance to take action against these individuals was for naught and resulted in the same outcome.  
Our analysis of this situation leads us to believe the WP:NLT policy violates 42 USC 1985, conspiracy by indviduals to violate civil rights under United States Law through threats, blocking, and undue influence by preventing users to take legal action when criminal matters are involved, for which the Foundation and the arbitors are personally liable under numerous doctrines.  Since Wikipedia is not a sovereign in any sense, it has no immunity for these acts nor do the arbitors.  Section 230 does not exempt these ocurrances.
Compounding the situation is the fact that none of the admins on the project, Wales, nor the arbcom have a charter from the Foundation to exist or exercise such control over users, nor is there any waiver from this user agreeing to such in so far as criminal activity is involved.   The facts are overwhelming and compelling.  An editor has been pursued from day one by internet stalkers.  The Foundation instituted a previous ban then lied to the community and the public who was behind it to obfusciate liability.  The acts of bad faith here are so numerous, they cannot be listed here in a reasonable time period.   The community then assured this editor it would be handled and instead allowed it to continue while they watched for their own pleasure and gratification. 
Combined with this is a compendium of evidence provided by former employees of the Foundation of mismanagement of the affairs of the Foundation, its moneys, and other materials which are to say the least, extremely disturbing.  I will not comment further on this area except off-wiki with the parties involved, but it appears from the evidence fraud, co-mingling of funds, stock churning, and a constructive trust has been created with the assets of this project and the foundation by members of this group which precludes me or any of my associates from providing any additional funding to the Foundation.  I need to address these matters directly with the Foundation to determine if any of these allegations are true, and if this proceeding is an attempt to use undue influence.  In any event, these matters need to be publicly addressed and corrected by the Foundation if they are false.
The facts appear there is a group in power who toriously interfere with other editors without authority for which the Foundation is liable under liability doctrines due to negligence.  
The first step is to address these matters through mail with the foundation, and that failing, discussing other options with the parties involved.  The following request is made to initiate this off-wiki discussion of next steps.
*1.  I require the addresses of all members of the arbcom who voted on the matter in order to send formal letters which list those matters involving the conduct of the arbcom and these proceedings.  I have most of the information already.  Please email your physical address to jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com so a letter can be sent to you and the foundation.  I also need Jimmy Wales mailing address for receipt of these letters.
*2.  The physical address and contact information of the legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. 
*3.  I will initiate formal mediation with a mediator for which I will pay for their services to explore and discuss the various issues this case has presented.
I look forward to discussing this matter further with the parties involved off wiki and hope we can come to a mutual agreement.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Merkey, I noticed that you cited a specific federal law to support your claim that WP:NLT is legally actionable.  Thank you.  Genuinely and without sarcasm, thank you for providing a citation in support of your claim.  IANAL, but I learned details of that law as part of P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training).  Editing Wikipedia is not a civil right.  Therefore, 42 USC 1985 does not apply. Pfagerburg 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being stalked and subjected to criminal harassment is a civil right, for which the government has a compelling interest to stop.   Jeff 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a Government