Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

message: === Statement by probably involved Amarkov ===
Pfagerburg has outlined the dispute pretty well, but there's one thing I want to add. Jeffrey also has a habit of dismissing any criticism of him as trolling, or at the least harassment, as shown in the ANI thread linked. This isn't intended as saying that none of it is trolling; some of it certainly is, but all of it is not. And if anyone thinks I am an involved party, I have no objection to putting me up there.
=== Response to Amarkov by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ===
I do not want to offend anyone, but criticism from someone who is very young may not be recieved the way the speaker intends by me.  I have lived a long time (47 this year).  I have achieved a great deal in my lifetime.  I remember when I was 22 years and everything seemed so easy to just go along with the crowd and I felt I KNEW right from wrong so clearly.  Looking back, I realize that following the mass mind in the wrong way to go sometimes.  I see the ruts all those people I knew a long time ago ended up in -- most of them got nowhere in their lives.  I do read everything people type, and I do think about all of it, even it it appears I do not.  Please do not assume that because you cannot "nudge" me in any direction means I did not hear you, or am not thinking about what you said.  I am a very bright chap and I have always hired college students and other young folks in my ventures and keep them around because young people are fun to have around and do not know what they cannot do yet, and because of this sometimes accomplish the amazing.  If what you are saying is I do not respond to being pushed around, you are correct.  But please do not assume I did not hear you.  I did hear you.   I just may not agree with your view of the world since I have lived a long time and have my own, and its not always following the crowd.  I may also have something called "wisdom" from "real life experience" and already have a clear picture of where you are going with it.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-party statement and party response before case was opened

message: I do not want to offend anyone, but criticism from someone who is very young may not be recieved the way the speaker intends by me.  I have lived a long time (47 this year).  I have achieved a great deal in my lifetime.  I remember when I was 22 years and everything seemed so easy to just go along with the crowd and I felt I KNEW right from wrong so clearly.  Looking back, I realize that following the mass mind in the wrong way to go sometimes.  I see the ruts all those people I knew a long time ago ended up in -- most of them got nowhere in their lives.  I do read everything people type, and I do think about all of it, even it it appears I do not.  Please do not assume that because you cannot "nudge" me in any direction means I did not hear you, or am not thinking about what you said.  I am a very bright chap and I have always hired college students and other young folks in my ventures and keep them around because young people are fun to have around and do not know what they cannot do yet, and because of this sometimes accomplish the amazing.  If what you are saying is I do not respond to being pushed around, you are correct.  But please do not assume I did not hear you.  I did hear you.   I just may not agree with your view of the world since I have lived a long time and have my own, and its not always following the crowd.  I may also have something called "wisdom" from "real life experience" and already have a clear picture of where you are going with it.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Amarkov by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 

message: If you have evidence of ^demon harassing you or any other editor based on sexual orientation, please provide it.  As you correctly point out, that would violate at least one Wikipedia policy, though it would probably not fall under this particular arbitration.
Evidence of ^demon acting in concert with Al Petrofsky should also be provided.
According to my personal understanding of the federal court order, Al Petrofsky is permanently enjoined from distributing the Novell settlement document.  That's all.  Al maintains a web site with what appears to be all of the legal documents in this case, so that is a convenient place to find them.  By posting links, I do not endorse Al's site or his side of the legal dispute.  These documents are primary sources.   and .  Al is definitely banned from distributing the Novell settlement document.  There is no mention in either court ruling of "online harassment" or a prohibition thereon.
If ArbCom is not allowed to use primary sources to determine the accuracy of a complaint, would an arbitrator please so indicate, and I will strike the previous paragraph. Pfagerburg 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject to input from an arbitrator, I think the Arbitration Committee can consider any evidence presented. What weight to give to particular types or items of evidence is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey re ^demon 

message: I'm unclear on the scope of this arbitration.  I've had a good deal of interaction with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey since he was unbanned in May, and I harbor deep concerns about his behavior to the point of having prepared an arbitration request myself.  (That request never made it here to ArbCom due to timing issues related to Real Life.)  However, the interaction I've had with Merkey has been largely independent of the issues with Pfagerburg et al.  So I'm not quite sure whether my concerns are within the scope of this arbitration.  The initial request by Pfagerburg seems to be focused on Merkey's indirect legal threats, and my concerns are more focused on violations of other WP policies (AGF, NPA, CIVIL, NOR, NPOV).  Would it be appropriate for me to add evidence along these lines?  Would it mean that I'm an involved party?  (I wouldn't necessarily object to that if it came to it; after all, I would have been if I had followed through on my prepared RfAr.) alanyst /talk/ 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the scope of the case as it has evolved, including in the proposed decision currently under consideration, you may present evidence concerning other aspects of the subject editors' behavior. Presenting evidence or workshop proposals would not make you a party to the case, unless the arbitrators decided to add you. If you are going to add evidence or comment, you should probably do so quickly, as this case is already in the voting stage. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I wanted to know—thanks! alanyst /talk/ 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this arbitration 

message: Why do you find a courtesy blanking to be necessary?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtesy blanking

message: Assuming that JVM did not edit Wikipedia from Sept 2008 thru Sept 2009, the ban is no longer in effect. Of course, the indefinite block could be said to stand irrespective of this, but shouldn't logging here cease? –xenotalk 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The account is a sockpuppet anyway, and IMO the ban block stands as indefinite. That said, the user is such a problem, it's worth blocking him based on the edits of the Jvmphoto account alone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The block stands as indefinite, but I think the ArbCom sanctions ("ban") have expired. Could be wrong, tho. –xenotalk 20:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text: See 166.70.238.43, 166.70.238.44, 166.70.238.45, 166.70.238.46. August 31, 2010 at the earliest now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.228 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired