Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Workshop

message: Despite the inacurate information on the previous banning page I was banned by the Wikimedia Community 2 1/2 years ago, I was informed by Brad Patrick the day after I was banned the action was ordered by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation after failing to respond to an email from the Board.   Sadly, the entire affair was related to Brad's law firm not using a qualified domain name and my email spam filter rejecting the mail.   When they learned I did not get the email due to this some days later, there was a lot of remorse expressed to me by the foundation over the actions they had taken.  Given that, I have never been under a community ban and the posting to the banned users page was materially false and misleading.   I was informed this was due to my involvement in an off site legal dispute that the foundation did not wish to become involved in at the time.   Given these facts, all evidence of previous issues with these incidents related to my biography are covered under the agreements made with Brad Patrick.  Please leave the past where it belongs. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if we assume that your original banning was a mistake (and therefore all subsequent bans of your other accounts were the perpetuation of that mistake) that does not erase the edits made by you under those user names.  Rather than saying you were previously banned, I can say, you have a long history of making legal threats, citing the comments made by various accounts but without mentioning the blocks and bans that resulted. Thatcher131 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not getting it.  You may not use evidence of another account as those issues were previously addressed and concluded with the foundation at that time.  It's not relevant here and you may not use it.  The evidence is banned.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you would more clearly explain your contention.  The word "mediation" has a specific meaning but you are using it in a different way, so it is hard for me to tell exactly what your contention is.  And, as I have said twice so far, if you believe you have some agreement that the edits made under your former accounts can not be mentioned here, you should attempt to clarify that through the ArbCom closed mailing list (which Jimbo reads and is a frequent contributor, I am told) by e-mailing any member of ArbCom. Thatcher131 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I raised the issues.  The arbcom is going to do whatever it is going to do, then based on the result, I am going to do whatever I need to do.  There is no sense debating about it.  The issue is raised.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I reviewed the edits of Waya sahoni and Gadugi (or at least as many as I could skim through before my eyes glazed over) including the deleted talk page edits and I don't see anything that would have triggered a block from me.  Maybe a block was justified on the basis that you had a suit going against the SCOX editors and were also disputing with them here, I don't really know.  I'm certainly comfortable with restricting my future comments, evidence and proposals to your contributions under your present account since your return on May 2. Thatcher131 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should remove all allegations related to these accounts and past incidents. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, why? The committee can (and arguably should) use all pertinent information to reach a decision. I would imagine that the past behavior of parties in this dispute could be considered relevant, in that regard. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Banning Ordered by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees pursuant to [[WP:OFFICE]]

message: I am going to abstain from further dialouge on the matter.  As I said, the arbcom will do whatever it is going to do.  Based on that outcome, I will do whatever I am required to do.  That being said, good night to all.  I will be traveling in Germany from July 27 through mid-August.  I may have internet access from Germany, but this drama may have to unfold without me beginning Friday.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Merkey, please clarify your statement that "[b]ased on that outcome, I will do whatever I am required to do." The meaning of this statement is not clear. Newyorkbrad 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that pretty much sums up the underlying problem here, no? Kirill 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your specific question? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstained 

message: Disclaimer: My only interest in this is that I discovered Mr. Merkey through the ANI page. 
What about having Mr. Merkey change his user name (inform arbcom and an extra admin or two) and then he can edit anonymously and thus eliminate his status as a troll magnet.  This would probably go along with the native american topic ban. R. Baley 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible remedy