Talk:Jeff V. Merkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Jeff V. Merkey has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

The subject of this article, Jeff V. Merkey, has edited Wikipedia as Gadugi (talk • contribs).

To-do list for Jeff V. Merkey:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

I have deleted the old discussion because of the unpleasantness of it. Please be extra careful here to be courteous and assume good faith. We are nearing a resolution of this longstanding conflict. Play nice, everyone.--Jimbo Wales 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous version of article deleted

After a careful reading of the previous version of the article, I decided that the best thing is for us to engage in a completely fresh start on the subject. The previous version had some really bad errors in it... for example, the very first substantive statement in the article had a citation... but the citation had absolutely no information which would confirm or disconfirm the statement.

But what is worse about the article is that it contained large swaths of original historical research, which is a very firm no-no for Wikipedia.

In this experimental rewrite, I would like to ask people to stick very firmly ONLY to published sources. If you want to do original historical research or news reporting, do it elsewhere. Published sources only.

Keep in mind that Mr. Merkey is a controversial figure, and that many of the sites about him on the Internet were specifically set up to mock or ridicule him. No matter how you may feel about Mr. Merkey yourself, as encyclopedists we have a moral obligation to set a very high bar of factuality for our sources.

Please, dig in and edit. But let's make this a good article this time.--Jimbo Wales 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes "original historical research" ? This charge was levelled previously during one of the ill-fated arbcoms. Is this a reference to Jeff's utterings on LKML? Or what? ThreeVryl 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow - thats a lot of history lost. Would you be opposed to me moving the old history to a subpage or something so all that work isn't lost? RN 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nearing a restitution?

Huh? And there was me thinking that the problem was more or less solved, in that Jeff had gone away and left everyone alone. Have you been making secret dealings behind everyone's back? So much for Wikipedia's openness --Aim Here 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret dealings? What on earth are you talking about? Let me quote myself: "The previous version had some really bad errors in it... for example, the very first substantive statement in the article had a citation... but the citation had absolutely no information which would confirm or disconfirm the statement." If that sounds like 'more or less solved' then you seriously need to find a new hobby my friend, writing an encyclopedia means taking facts and citations seriously. The article violated many of our longstanding policies, including most prominently policies against original research. A rewrite is in order. --Jimbo Wales 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the original article was a mess, you did use the phrase 'nearing a restitution of this longstanding conflict', which suggests, despite the complete lack of evidence available in public, that there is an actual conflict going on, as opposed to one which had been completely dormant for ages now. After all, suddeny and with no warning, wiping out an article and ordering everyone to start again over some sourcing problems is rather heavy-handed and drastic. The normal WP procedure is to stick some tags on it and telling everyone to change the bad bits. The 'secret deals' phrase was of course total speculation, and sorry about that, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't something happening in private that sparked off this wholesale deletion of yours, either a deal or a threatened lawsuit. After all, pretty much the last thing Merkey said on this whole stupid subject was that he had been trying, in private, to throw $2 million at you and/or Wikipedia and threatening his usual bag of lawsuits. Well, whatever...--Aim Here 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not write "nearing a restitution of this longstanding conflict". Please read more carefully before making wild accusations. For the record, I have never been offered any money by Jeff Merkey. There is currently no pending lawsuit regarding this article, nor was this action taken in order to settle or avoid any such lawsuit. The issue here is the quality of Wikipedia, a quality that is not helped by paranoid ravings in defense of bad articles. --Jimbo Wales 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

resolution, restitution, just a typo. I'm still none the wiser as to the nature or existence of this phantom conflict that you seem to think we're all happily nearing a resOLUtion of. --Aim Here 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The conflict has continued unabated, I have no idea why on earth you would think that it had stopped. The article was, on the face of it, badly written, containing transparent errors, and very dubious claims. Do you really imagine that the conflict ended? That the article was satisfactory?--Jimbo Wales 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

search at news.com - several stories here

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/47716.htm - not sure if 100% reliable, but could help fill in some holes

http://www.itworld.com/Career/1882/ITW2341/pfindex.html - another 1997-oriented one... reliability looks decent...

[edit] Rewrite/deletion

Look, Jimbo, to rewrite something doesn't require deleting all the history. Nor is there any need to start completely from scratch—the old version may have had problems, but I have a definite distaste for that kind of disregard for people's work, and I think article improvement would be more effectively done by collaboratively re-developing the old article. Everyking 09:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The old article was in violation of policy. Months of complaints about the article did not bring about a successful result. It was high time for a sharp break with the past and an absolute insistence that nothing goes in the article without a proper source. The issue here is that there actually are people who hate Jeff Merkey and who have manipulated our process in order to write a one-sided highly biased article based on original research. The result was a bad article that contained virtually nothing worth saving. (The bits worth saving can be brought back easily enough, and they are being brought back.) It looks to me so far that this experiment is working quite well. --Jimbo Wales 13:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

....."sharp break with the past and an absolute insistence that nothing goes in the article without a proper source"....Now if we could ONLY do the same for EVERY Wiki article :) j/k. Jimbo, let me say I have a love/hate relationship with your/our project. To use a quote about a famous band "you aren't the best at what you do but you are the ONLY ones who do what you do" or to that effect. You will NEVER please all the people all the time in here, that's pretty clear. I haven't done a scientific survey but I get the feeling that like 90%, really that high, of articles are NOT sourced. I am not saying they are wrong, its more that its HARD WORK to source EVERY statement on this site. My current favorite is Jacqueline Susann and from my VERY limited work here I would say there are 1,000s if not 10s of 1,000s of other articles like that out there. Anyways, enough of my rambling and again I REALLY enjoy your/our project and wish it much success. --Tom 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said of the Juan Cole article, but your response to that couldn't have been more different. - Xed 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just reviewed that article, and I would say that my response to that conflict is the same as in this one. In that particular case, the conflict and complaints to me about the article are relatively new, and so there is hope that it will sort itself soon enough. If no progress is made in due course, as was the case in this article, then nuking it and insisting on a total rewrite will be the right thing to do. At the moment, I think some brave editor ought to go into that article and make a stub of it and insist on rigorous sourcing and "no original research" throughout. Will you take on that challenge? --Jimbo Wales 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In one way it's good that you are relatively open about your biases, such as your support of the racist Ann Coulter - (ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys etc). But I think they are a detriment to the project when all the cronies follow you. Remember Jimbo, I know more about your integrity than most people. You're no Linus Torvalds. As for your suggestion about making a stub of Juan Cole - if you had reviewed the article as you stated, you would have seen it was locked. - Xed 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way have I supported Ann Coulter? That is an absurd accusation. I have supported that the article about her be well-sourced and accurate.--Jimbo Wales 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted with Wikipedia. The lockstep adherence to the requirement of published sources will eventually be the downfall of this whole enterprise. There are too many subjects, in which there are no published sources, that deserve a place in this or any other encyclopedia. See my article on SP&S #700, which required a lot of original research because there are no published sources on the subject. Should this article be deleted? If so it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. --Jerry (Talk) 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that having high standards is detrimental to Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Errrr... your seem to have a problem with categorisation. It is not neccessarily a 'high standard' that you are imposing, but an arbitrary rule, created, iirc, to stop all the netkooks and their 'suppressed research' claims etc. I recall an interview somewhere where you said as much. In that realm, it may have served you well, but there are circumstances where, as Jerryg points out, where it can be to your detriment. And it seems to have interesting consequences, such as in this article, where it is deemed to be 'original research' to link to primary sources, such as LKML. C'est la vie... ThreeVryl 07:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

High Standards? Is that what you call it? You know Jimbo, it's your site, and your rules. I think I'll go play in someone else's backyard for a while. --Jerry (Talk) 07:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes original historical research?

Google still has the old version: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Uar19J0WrFMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey Get it while you can.

Can anyone tell me what Jimbo's problem with this is? And it was so bad it neccessitated blanking the whole page and the discussions?

Jeff made himself famous round about the time that SCO decided to claim that they "owned" Linux. Jeff rushed into the fray and attempted to "buy" a licence for Linux for the sum of $50,000. Now, the primary sources for this are the archives of the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML). Jeff's claims and more are all there. Sources are in the old article.

Any article on Jeff that does not include this is unencylopedic.

Then there is the peyote stuff, all a matter of public record.

The old article also had links to the various patents Jeff holds, and they should go back in as well.

ThreeVryl 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has decided that you have to redo all that work. However, parts of the old article could be posted here, reviewed, and then restored if they have met with everyone's satisfaction. Everyking 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, fine, but what is verboten and what isn't? Not lifting a finger till I understand his objection. ThreeVryl 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me give an example, although I consider it to be an act of supreme "Assume Good Faith" on my part to have to explain this. "Merkey had copied and distributed on his website copies of an email he allegedly sent to Jimbo Wales stating Merkey's intent to seek damages from Wikimedia Foundation for libel and invasion of privacy, although this email is currently unavailable."

This is just one example of a horribly unencyclopedic claim. Not only does this not state any credible reference, it actually admits that there IS no reference. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, trading in innuendo and rumor. You need to cite legitimate sources here.--Jimbo Wales 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

True, however, citing something like an LKML post should be perfectly fine when it is unambiguous and undisputed.--Eloquence * 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But in this case, the relevant LKML posts are hotly disputed. Merkey was apparently the victim (no surprise) of trolls who posted fake messages to LKML purporting to be from him. Those are hotly disputed and in fact bring the reliability of the archives into serious question.--Jimbo Wales 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I do think this speaks for itself, though.--Eloquence * 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we could find a more neutral source than that site, though.--Jimbo Wales 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on Jimbo.. It's a mirror of Jeff's constantly changing website. How neutral do you want. Are you saying that the John Collins site is somehow biased because he mirrors what Jeff publishes? Give me a break. --Jerry (Talk) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that the mirroring is selective, and that there have been accusations that some of the materials in the mirror are altered. Archive.org is a neutral third party which does content-neutral mirroring, and so citing it is significantly better. Archive.org may be incomplete in some ways, of course.--Jimbo Wales 17:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What basis do you have for making such a claim? The site software automatically mirrored each change made by Merkey as the change was detected. There was absolutely nothing selective about it. Multiple people can attest to the accuracy and completeness of that mirroring, since they observed both the original postings and the mirrored copies. A few people can even provide their own independent mirrors. I have never seen any accusations from Merkey or anyone else that the material was altered in any way from his original. --MediaMangler 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is dragging this thread OT a bit, but it would be useful if WP's 'Upload File' page allowed you to upload a URL as well as local files. This would give WP some selective archiving ability to cover these situations. (Ie., archive.org isn't frequent enough or selective either.) Fair use would surely cover reproduction of some notorious pages. Fair use should cover WP as much as it covers archive.org. Otherwise, is there a neutral way to include screenshots of JVM's pages? Canberran 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

Several stories at newsforge about Merkey's linux exploits: [1] [2]. Also a couple of mentions on theregister.co.uk: [3] [4]

Morwen - Talk 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buying the Kernel

lwn.net:
http://lwn.net/Articles/106353/

Groklaw article:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041011220545598

Slashdot article in all its 376 comment glory:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/13/159216

[edit] That "Gadugi" Thang!

Enterprise Opensource Magazine:
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/47773.htm

Newsforge:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/17/2021230&from=rss

IT-Director.com
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?page=1&id=12782

Now this is a funny one, an "official" blog at ZDnet:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=109

[edit] Jeff sues 200+ people, websites and namesakes

Linux Electrons:
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20050619080217333

Electronic Freedom Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/merkey_v_yahooscox/

YASA (yet another /. article)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/0456243

[edit] Proposal again

What about my proposal for moving it to a subpage from above? Maybe the same for the old talk page history and there is like 1000 edits there and GFDL concerns as well. RN 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would advise you against deliberately reposting libel. There are no GFDL concerns at all if we delete the article and write it again from scratch. There will be GFDL concerns if you post the old version and people blindly copy from it. :) --Jimbo Wales 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would advise you against deliberately reposting libel" - *sigh* a warning/threat in response to a question/proposal, not my day I guess :\. Also, for future reference, you could have asked someone like me with at least a decent track record in related subjects to help clean the article up, rather then deleting a year's worth of work. Anyway, I'm moving on to other articles, lest I find myself on the receiving end of another "piece of advise" - cheers :). RN 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This was neither a warning nor a threat. It was advice, meant sincerely and with good will. I think that reposting the history of the article should be avoided precisely because it was such a mess.--Jimbo Wales 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That article history represented an awful lot of work—700+ revisions. Don't you think about things like that? I mean, I think deleting all the history could be a valid option, but that should be decided by the people who are working on the article. You just came in and wiped the slate clean with no deliberation and no process involved. Everyking 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Danny and Brad Patrick did start a somewhat covert deliberation process. In response to my query on his talk page about Danny's deletion of material, they both sent emails to me. Brad Patrick also spoke to me via phone. As a result of that phone conversation, I more or less understand what they were attempting to do and appreciate why they felt it was needed. I made it clear that I did not agree with the "wink and a nod" approach of discussing their changes off-line with individual editors, although I don't think that opinion was given much weight. Jimbo seems to have pulled the rug out from under their efforts in any event. --MediaMangler 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is a very strange interpretation of events. Danny, and Brad, and me, have talked to a lot of people about this article, both on the talk page, through email, in person, etc. I dispute strongly that there is anything wrong at all in doing that sort of thing. It is not 'covert' if I get a puzzling email about an article that I do not know a lot about, and then as a result I ask good editors to take a look at it and see if they can help.

As to Everyking's beef, well, I don't know what to tell you. Those 700+ revisions contained a lot of good stuff, a lot of vicious smears, some outsiders committing libel, some hate speech, etc. Deleting individual revisions can be possible, but it gives rise to a lot of very complex questions about attribution and the GNU FDL. And the article, as it was at the end of those 700+ revisions, was riddled with unsourced claims, original research, and blatant errors of fact. I make no apologies for saying that we were much better off starting over from scratch.--Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that how it works now? No wonder valuable contributors are leaving in droves. There is far too much power-tripping and behind-the-scenes plotting going on. - Xed 12:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)#

Xed, you are wrong. --Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't understand why you feel I presented a strange interpretation of events. If you prefer to replace the phrase "somewhat covert" with "private" or "discrete", it really doesn't change the meaning. The phrase "wink and a nod" was Brad's own description of the process and I would think that description would be far more objectionable. --MediaMangler 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that people may misinterpret what has happened based on this description. I am committed to us having an accurate, neutral, well-sourced article here. We have had trouble achieving this, in no small part because some people who hate Merkey have enjoyed messing around with him by using Wikipedia to provoke him. That is a waste of time for all of us. Having discussed this issue with Brad at great length, I can assure you that he wants the same thing. I fear that his intention may have been some misunderstanding between you and him in this phone conversation. In any event, it looks like the current experiment is going well, as the article continues to grow and improve each day.--Jimbo Wales 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the "problems" that I saw in the old article (and discussion) seemed to come from the mysterious "friends" of Merkey who insisted that there was a conspiracy to ruin Merkey's name. Of course, the fact that said users would neither confirm nor deny that they were Merkey (or not, as the case may be), only continued the acrimony. Docrailgun 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merkey doesn't deserve an entry in any encyclopedia, online or otherwise. This watered-down pap just proves my point. And this is good article material? Whether Jimbo intended or not, Jeff Merkey wins. --Jerry (Talk) 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a war, nor is it a contest. Anyone trying to declare a 'winner' is really missing the point. --InShaneee 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course this isn't a war. I didn't imply that. Jeff got kicked off wikipedia 4 or 5 times trying to water down this article. In the end, Jimbo deletes the many months of work and discussion of many editors leaving what..? Oh my gosh.. Just what Jeff got kicked off for. A watered down puff piece. And you guys wonder why you get no respect. Whatever.. You've lost another editor. --Jerry (Talk) 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New intro

Ok, here we go, I've been working on a proper intro for this:

Jeff Vernon Merkey is a computer scientist and entrepreneur. After working as chief scientist for Novell Inc.^[1], Merkey left to create his own company, Wolf Mountain Group, to develop a set of clustering technologies^[2]. Later renamed Timpanogas Research Group (or simply TRG)^[3], Merkey and his company would become involved in a legal dispute with Novell over intellectual property, with resulting legal fees running into the millions of dollars^[1]. When the legal battle with Novell was over with, TRG would go on to develop various open source projects, including a NetWare-compatable operating system^[4].

After a brief spat with Microsoft over the NTFS source code TRG licensed from the company in 2000^[5], Merkey would once again go on to develop slightly different projects. Much like before, Merkey set out to develop an open source, Netware-compatable operating system, only this time it would run the Linux kernel atop its Netware microkernel called GaDuGi^[6]. However, due to Merkey attempting to use a different license then the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel, along with other actions, he would become embroiled in controversy with the free software community. Wolf Mountain Group later created its own file system for Linux, called the Wolf Mountain File System^[7].

^ ^a ^b Essex, David (2000-08-30). Protect yourself against an inevitable-disclosure lawsuit. ITworld.com. Retrieved on May 25, 2006.
^ CNET News.com Staff (1997-04-29). Confusion reigns on Wolf Mountain. CNET News.com. Retrieved on May 23, 2006.
^ CNET News.com Staff (1997-05-13). Short Take: Wolf Mountain Group now Timpanogas Research Group. CNET News.com. Retrieved on May 23, 2006.
^ Geralds, John (2000-08-22). Open source NetWare compatible OS unveiled. vnunet.com. Retrieved on May 24, 2006.
^ Thurrott, Paul (February 2001). NTFS Licensee Reports Microsoft Threat, Apology. Windows IT Pro. Retrieved on May 25, 2006.
^ O'Gara, Maureen (2005-01-17). GaDuGi To Rewrite its Linux Side, Says Merkey. Enterprise Open Source Magazine. Retrieved on May 25, 2006.
^ Wolf Mountain Group L.L.C. Announces Wolf Mountain File System for Windows and Linux. Wolf Mountain Group (2006-04-13). Retrieved on May 25, 2006.

Hopefully that's correct. I'll need to expand the article accordingly, of course. RN 09:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a nice start, but I see a couple of problems. First, it seems that the Netware-compatible OS and the Wolf Mountain File System were announced in the sources you site, but that is quite different from being completed or released. I am not aware of these products ever reaching the market yet, for whatever reason. Also, the "millions of dollars" figure might not be something we want to state as fact, but rather to say more directly, "according to so-and-so, the fees reached $4 million" or whatever like that.

But, as I say, it is quite a nice start.--Jimbo Wales 23:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I acted upon your comments for the new version, I believe :) RN 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of the LKML

Jimbo says: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&diff=54926523&oldid=54900356

"Yes. But in this case, the relevant LKML posts are hotly disputed. Merkey was apparently the victim (no surprise) of trolls who posted fake messages to LKML purporting to be from him. Those are hotly disputed and in fact bring the reliability of the archives into serious question."

Is there anyone besides the subject of this article who 'hotly disputes' the reliability of LKML postings?

Is there anyone besides the subject of this article who thinks that faked messages were sent to LKML? Can this be verified? Is there a reputable source to back it up?

Is there even a suggestion of HOW this could be true? Has it ever happened to anyone else? ThreeVryl 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What we can do, as always in such cases, is report the controversy. Briefly summarize the LKML posts and add a cited comment that Merkey disputes their authenticity. Where has he disputed them?--Eloquence * 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly he is disputing, but I tried to only use them indirectly - I.E. not using the e-mails as a source directly and instead rely on other reliable sources. RN 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is the additional question of relevance and original research. If a flame war happens on a mailing list, and it had no impact elsewhere, and no reputable media reported on it, it is very hard in my mind to justify the inclusion of the flame war in an article about one of the participants in a flame war. This I think holds true generally. Some of Jeff's LKML posts were important, received media attention, and are not thought by anyone to be forgeries. Others are denied by Jeff to be from him, did not make news, and are dredged up only by enemies seeking even more ways to troll him and make him look bad. I should think that the verifiable facts in reputable news sources are enough. Even reporting on some of these alleged controversies strikes me as highly POV.--Jimbo Wales 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevance: The use of peyote is relevant to this article. http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=214297 Without going further into the Mooney saga, and Jeff's role in it, somewhere in this article it should mention Jeff's "utah native american church". Generally, it seems, that you can't legally use peyote if you aren't a member of a recognised NAC.

I note also that none of the information regarding Jeff's patents that was in the original article made it into this one.

As for being "dredged up only by enemies", they were unchallenged by Jeff for years, and returned to prominence after he testified in the Mooney trial in 2005. Drawing conclusions from that I suppose is "original research". ThreeVryl 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to the Code offer, this post to the LKML is relevant to the TRG section of the article, and provides a closure to that period of history

[edit] Source request

"However, due to Merkey attempting to use a different license than the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel, along with other actions, he would become embroiled in controversy with the free software community." This sentence seems to be unsourced at the moment. Did Merkey "attempt" that, or did he "announce" that he would? Did Merkey announce, or did Wolf Mountain? (There is a difference between a person and a corporate entity.) etc. I am just trying to make sure that everything is *perfect* with this article.--Jimbo Wales 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is a hard one, and I'm not much of a bio writer, and it is going to be messy :). I thought about it for hours, and I decided to basically simply restate what another NewsForge article said - that he was a controversial figure on the kernel's mailing list. The company vs. Merkey part is difficult as well; since he was the one who announced it on the mailing list, and the articles refer to it as simply Merkey, I'm assuming it is Merkey himself and not the company that made the offer to buy the kernel. Anyway, if have any suggestions or want to change anything, go right ahead :). RN 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

The lead section is a bit long for the length of the article but the article is fine and easy to read. Lincher 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed?

Please, permit no speculation in this article. It needs to be kept highly accurate and extremely well sourced.

I do not have time at the moment to remove the claim which is currently listed as "citation needed" but I hope someone will do it quickly.--Jimbo Wales 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I initially removed the statement, but the servers are currently announced on the WMG website, so I re-added it, with a reference. I couldn't find anything about these things replacing the other plans, so I left that out. Kind regards, --Joanne B 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done Joanne :). RN 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vs. Linux proponents lawsuit

From Todo: RN 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Explain events before the vs. Linux proponents lawsuit. The lawsuit didn't just come out of nowhere, and the reasons for the lawsuit were many and varied.

The difficulty with this is trying to source these to reliable sources... if anyone has a lead that would be awesome :)! 67.185.132.50 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the tight restrictions on what are considered reliable sources for this article, I'm not sure how to provide that. But I don't think this article is complete until there is some coverage of those events (in fact that is the only reason I know about this person). I don't think the article would really meet item 3 of the good article guidelines, though I'm not going to fail it. Has all interest in this article been lost? 71.145.142.207 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No :) - its really pretty close to the featured status I've been going for - I just can't find the usual good sources for this part :\. Right now I've been trying to gleam what I can from sources 7 and 16 as well as the lawsuit itself. I have to put it in rather surgically though due to the subject matter... RN 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novell award

While I was at the Novell cafeteria I saw that he won an award there (his name is on a plaque or whatever) around 1992 for innovation or some other thing - I'll try to dig up a source if I can. RN 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merkey's public postings

Posting from his verified Yahoo! account, we have the latest diatribe from Jeff Merkey. [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

Irony [[10]]

Nobody made Jeff say these things. It's a public forum and his account was verified by asking the holder of the jeff_merkey_neptune_rules account to modify www.merkeylaw.net .

There is no doubt that Jeff penned these 'interesting' views.

[edit] Most ridiculous 'what links here' list ever

At the moment I am writing this, there are 138 links to this article. All, but one, are cross-namespace links. · Naive cynic · 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New lawsuits

Due to the past history on this article, I want us to proceed slowly and very, very carefully with news of new lawsuits. To be clear: we know for a fact that there are people on the Internet who intensely dislike Mr. Merkey and have used every opportunity in the past to make him look bad. Wikipedia, as a matter of official policy, is neutral, which means that we do not like Mr. Merkey, we do not dislike Mr. Merkey, we are not a forum to praise him, we are not a forum to curse him. We simply report, very very carefully, on the actual facts.

No original research. Be absolutely certain that anyone mentioned in any media report is actually the right person. Make sure not to come to any conclusions beyond what is actually stated in the news reports, and attribute every statement to the original source. Period.

I have semi-protected the article so that good Wikipedians can look after this article without the distraction of trolls. I have reverted the edits of an anon, not because I think the material can not be included, but so that people who are known and trusted by the community can carefully check it.

We are Wikipedians. If we take pride in what that means, this is a chance to live up to what we mean by that. Proceed with objectivity and kindness, find the truth, and go no further.--Jimbo Wales 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really supposed to show "kindness" for a guy who, at one point on his own Web site, called me a "cyberstalker" and hinted at pedophilia and other illegal activity on my part, based solely on the fact that I had happened to be among the people who had edited his article in the past? *Dan T.* 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually. That's what it means to be a Wikipedian. We ought to hold ourselves to the highest possible standards, write clearly and neutrally, with love and respect for everyone. Detailing the facts is fine, but get them right, write without bias, and refrain from personal attacks. There is zero cost to us in being kind.--Jimbo Wales 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is more important to be kind than truly neutral anyway. If the subject of a biography wants facts ommited or changed, or their history revised, that should be the goal. Merkey should definitely have the final say over what is true and what isn't. If he says he isn't Waya, that means he isn't Waya, especially if everybody else thinks he is Waya, or if it is patently obvious that he is Waya. That is what neutrality (and kindness) is all about. If he says that there is a conspiracy to forge 10 year old email list postings as him, that conspiracy obviously exists, since he is the only one who really knows. Again, that is neutrality (and kindness). Any obvious Merkey sock-puppets are obviously not Merkey sock-puppets if he says they aren't, kindness and neutrality dictates that everything Merkey says about himself is fact. -- Nyet 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merkey made even more odious charges against Jimbo. If he can find it within himself to show kindness to Merkey, then surely others can as well. I am having some difficulty understanding why the information about the latest lawsuits was removed, since I don't think there was anything in the material other than what Merkey himself has sought to publicize. Removing the material doesn't seem to be an act of kindness towards Merkey, rather the opposite. --MediaMangler 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see any problem whatsoever with these edits. They're obviously the same Jeff Merkey - the scofacts page backing up the Petrofsky lawsuit info contains just another court filing relating to the same lawsuit as before. Jeff's wikimedia page not only has a mention of a son of the same (unusual) name as the alleged poison victim, we have the exact same picture as on some of the source URLs. This is hypersensitivity to the point of absurdity. Revert Jimbo! --Aim Here 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the text being reinstated, although I think that rather than a simple reinstatement, the section should be carefully vetted and reviewed and expanded.--Jimbo Wales 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"After Jeffrey and Margit Merkey’s two-year-old son Alexej consumed spinach tainted with E. Coli bacteria, he became so ill that he needed emergency surgery." [11] Not that I think this will make a difference; I understand Jimbo's new requirement that the subject of a biographical entry should be in full control of its content.--Nyet 19:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nyet, you can troll all you want, but Wikipedians who have known me for years will see exactly what's wrong with what you are saying. It doesn't help to make Wikipedia better for you to behave in this way. I want the article to be neutral and fully referenced to appropriate sources. --Jimbo Wales 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no Novell/Netware articles have links to this person?

Is there some Novell employees out there making sure that doesn't happen? Took me an hour to find this article trying to research this somewhat famous case of a former employee trapped in a sort of "non-compete" clause. I forgot his name but I knew he worked at "Novell" on "clustering" software. This case is probably more famous than the actual software. --MarsRover 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Jeff's claim to fame isn't really the software he's written, but all the bizarre trouble and nonsense he's been getting himself into, starting with his trade secrets fiasco with Novell, his attempts to 'buy Linux', and the numerous silly lawsuits and attempts to censor everyone on the internet who's ever mentioned his name. If the article puts undue weight on his software authorship, that's probably something to do with editwarring over it by Jeff himself and Jimbo Wales' subsequent interventions. --Aim Here 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date, education?

Do we have any information about his date of birth and his education? AxelBoldt 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Any attempt to add such information runs into WP:OR and WP:V. At one point I made the mistake of adding information about his date and place of birth as well as about his military service, as provided by Merkey himself. I argued that he was surely a reliable source for such personal information. He later made statements which flatly contradicted the information he had provided. MediaMangler 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well aren't military records public? -- Zanimum 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. That would violate privacy rights. Such records contain information which would be very useful for identity theft. They might also contain embarrassing information. -- MediaMangler 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the public could ask for any most government document to be released publicly. -- Zanimum 02:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But how does that help us with WP:OR and WP:V? Even if Merkey requested the release of his records and someone obtained a copy, that information would need to be published in some reputable source before we could use it. -- MediaMangler 09:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of edits

As usual, people seem very eager in this case to do original research that speculates or draws conclusions beyond those which can be sourced. "Assuming that this is the post to which Merkey's complaint refers" is speculation. "This claim would seem to imply" is speculation. If you can find a reputable source that makes these speculations, then cite it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a place for people to exercise their hatred for Jeff Merkey.--Jimbo Wales 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't hate Merkey; I've never even met him, nor corresponded with him. I'll address your two edits separately. Pfagerburg 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Assuming that this is the post ..." leaves open the possibility that there was another post that was the basis of Merkey's complaint. I'll come back to this one, since it's more difficult. Pfagerburg 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I found an external reference that associates the claim "file of people to be killed" with the statement "he belongs in everyone's kill file." Therefore, I'm not claiming it any more, just pointing to someone else who claimed it. I'm revising the article to point this out, since Merkey made the claim in his lawsuit, but I was not able to find where he actually provided any proof the Bruce Perens made this statement. (Not that it doesn't exist, just I wasn't able to find it.) Many of Merkey's other filings attach printouts of e-mails and web pages as evidence to back up his claims. Pfagerburg 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the spinach lawsuit, I will change the content to simply say that NSFoods was founded under that name in 1995, eleven years before they were accused of using their corporate name to inflict emotional distress. It's factual and NPOV. Pfagerburg 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If a third-party commentator has mentioned this, it is citeable, if you personally found a fact and connected it to the lawsuit, it's original research. --Delirium 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it is original research to note that 1. Natural Selection Foods was founded under that name in 1995 (cite archive.org), 2. The press releases from NSF discussing the outbreak included the company name (don't have a cite on hand, but I could find one easily), 3. Merkey is claiming that the company intended to emotionally distress him through the use of their corporate name (cite Merkey's own filings), 4. the corporate name predates the claim of infliction of emotional distress by 11 years (cite a calendar).

I wouldn't mock his claim if the press releases had said, "in accordance with Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, some people are dying due to E. Coli infections. Oh well, that's survival of the fittest for you. Sucks to be one of the weak ones that gets weeded out." However, the only use of "natural selection" I found in a press release was to state the company name.

I've attempted to connect the dots very explicitly so that no-one is fooled. The same goes for the Perens lawsuit; I saw kill file comment, I saw the lawsuit, and I was unsurprised when it was finally dropped.

In the same way as the kill file incident, it is my opinion that Merkey is trying to play it up (excessively) as the sympathetic defendant. Bringing up Darwin looks to me like an attempt to improve his chances with a Utah jury. You can imagine the statement that might be made to the jury: "not only was my son harmed, the company responsible is EEEEVIL because they believe in Charles Darwin. Please award me 50 bazillion dollars." Highly distasteful.

This is the unvarnished truth, assembled from very public sources - Merkey's own court filings, public press releases, and companies' web pages. He put the claim out there, he invited the scrutiny and subsequent mockery of said claim. Pfagerburg 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet updated the article, and I thought maybe we could work it out here. Assuming that everyone agrees that the "Natural Selection equals Emotional Distress" claim is ludicrous, how best to put this?

"The lawsuit does not fully explain why the use of the company's name, dating back to 1995, is an actionable tort."

"The company's press releases (insert cite here) relating to the outbreak use the words "Natural Selection" only to identify the company issuing the press release; the phrase does not appear in any other context in the press releases. Natural Selection Foods was founded under that name in 1995 (insert cite to archive.org here)."

Thoughts and comments? Pfagerburg 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no need to "connect the dots" by pointing out that 1995 is 11 years before the suit was filed or by explicitly drawing the reader's attention to the strangeness of Merkey's claim. There certainly is no need to ridicule Merkey in the article by adding a statement that his claim is ludicrous, even if everyone were to agree with that statement. Please allow the reader to draw his own conclusions from the facts without any editorial comment. If Merkey's claim is so obviously ludicrous, then the reader can see that for himself without having it pointed out. By the way, thanks for making the effort to add these facts. I was tempted to make the attempt on several occasions, but was too timid. My past experience with this article makes me very leery of editing it. — MediaMangler 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MediaMangler. I recognize you from the history logs of the older article, wayyyy back when. Like the killfile episode, I could not find a copy of the "offending" statement in Merkey's claim. Read on its face, the killfile comment sounds actionable, until one sees the original source. The "natural selection" claim is more likely to make the reader go "huh?" but I think it's still useful to include a link to the "offending" document so that the reader may compare that document to the claims in the lawsuit. How about my second suggestion, noting that "Natural Selection" only appears as the company's name, and let the reader conclude from there? I think there's no such thing as too much ridicule for such a claim. BUT we have to keep it NPOV, so even if I'm snickering as I point out the dates, or cite the supposed "list of people to be killed," I'll try to keep it strictly to the facts. Pfagerburg 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you depart from what is directly citable from reliable, verifiable sources, you strsy into original research. Unless you can find some press report which notes that Natural Selection only appears as the company's name, I don't think you can point that out. Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to provide a forum for ridicule. Providing the bare facts in Merkey's complaint, as reported by the press, is informative. Providing our own evaluation or interpretation of the merits of that complaint strays from that purpose. But that's just my opinion, which is probably not worth a lot. It still seems to me that Wikipedia policy is interpretated and enforced in a very arbitrary and capricious manner. — MediaMangler 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me untangle semantics here; you say "find some press report which notes that Natural Selection only appears as the company's name" is not OR. But to link to a press release from Natural Selection and state the simple and verifiable fact that Natural Selection only appears as the company name, that's original research? Pfagerburg 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I smell arbitrary enforcement of standards, probably due to legal threats from the subject of the article, see Notice of court order to Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia What happened to WP:NLT? Pfagerburg 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to Xenu and read in the section "Xenu in Scientology doctrine," where it says: "OT III also deals with Incident I, set four quadrillion years ago (roughly 300,000 times longer than current scientific consensus holds the age of the universe to be)." Is that OR? Fact 1 is that OT III says it happened 4 quadrillion years ago. The cite is missing, but could surely be found, as the OT III documents are all over the internet. Fact 2 is the current scientific consensus about the age of the universe. Again, a missing cite, and not taking into account the strict-creationist view, but could be easily cited. But here the article istelf takes the two facts and contrasts them, and that doesn't seem to be OR in my book, just a careful association of a claim with a fact. Likewise, the founding of NSFoods in 1995 is a fact, the use of "natural selection" only as the company name in press releases is a fact, and Merkey's lawsuit makes a claim that does not seem to withstand those two facts. Pfagerburg 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are asserting that the sole basis of Merkey's claim is the use of "natural selection" as the company name. Your assertion is not backed by the current scientific consensus, it is based upon your personal reading of his court filing and of the news reports. I'm fairly sure that Merkey himself has a somewhat different interpretation. I have read the court filing and the news reports and came to the same conclusion as you, but who the hell are we? We're just two anonymous voices on the Internet. The whole point is not about what is true, no matter how obvious it may seem, but what reliable source can we cite. Sorry I've been so poor at arguing in favor of Wiki's policies. I'm a somewhat reluctant convert to them. — MediaMangler 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can't find a press release right now, I'm sure that if I could, we would all see that the words "Natural Selection" only occur as the name of the company. This would point out the far-fetchedness (is that a real word?) of that portion of the claim. While searching for press releases from NSFoods relating to the outbreak, I had a bit of a revelation: I'm wasting my time and everybody else's time, too. Assuming that their son did suffer from contaminated spinach (poor kid, I feel sorry for him), and NSFoods has apparently owned up to it, they will probably pay out. If/when they do, it is possible that Merkey could see this as an admission of the entire claim, including the "Darwin" portion. I think you're probably right about truth vs. reliable cite, though it drives me up a wall sometimes that essentially, "you can't say it unless you're quoting someone else." Pfagerburg 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Merkey is prone to making really off-the-wall claims in his lawsuits, often without any attempt at explanation, clarification, or justification, leaving others to do the "original research" of trying to connect the dots and figure out what he apparently really means by them and just what real words or actions by the defendant were responsible for triggering such a claim. *Dan T.* 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merkey now main admin of Cherokee Wikipedia

chr:User:Jeffrey V. Merkey is the most active administrator on the Cherokee Wikipedia. He already blocked a user who complained about his attitude, and that user complained to a steward (see meta:User talk:Jon Harald Søby and meta:User:Va Shlyay 78). He also somehow gained admin privelages on the Navajo Wikipedia (nv:User:Jmerkey), where he hasn't exactly been nice to me (nv:User talk:Jmerkey, which he tried to delete in the wake of a vandal attack, but I restored).

I'm not sure how it is that a user such as this with a self-professed hatred of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is allowed to be in control of two of our projects. --Node 09:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is really only for discussing Merkey's English language biography. Any problems you may have encountered with him on various Wikis should be discussed following the normal dispute resolution process of those Wikis, on Meta, or else be taken up with the Foundation. Since Merkey has promised not to edit on the English Wiki, he will be unable to answer you in this forum and complaining here can serve no useful purpose. — MediaMangler 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about him. However, I do think it is relevant to this page. It is, after all, about Jeff. Besides, he has registered again as User:CherokeeWiki. --Node 06:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any concrete evidence that Merkey was ever Chief Scientist at Novell?

A search for "Novell Chief Scientist" turns up Drew Major, aka the Father of Netware, who seems to have held that position the whole time Merkey worked for Novell. If this fact cannot be verified with NPOV sources, it should be removed from the article.

The reference cited in the article [[12]] does state that Merkey "had been Novell's chief scientist". In the absence of any source disputing that statement, I think we have to accept it since it was made by a reputable journalist, especially since other sources make the same claim. At the risk of violating WP:OR, I will note that there is a finding of fact from a judge in one of Merkey's lawsuits [[13]] which states that "Merkey was a chief scientist at Novell" and "Merkey remained the chief scientist on the project". While those quotations lead me to suspect that Merkey was really the chief scientist for one or more specific projects rather than chief scientist for all of Novell, that requires interpretation of a primary source. — MediaMangler 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if someone in the print media screws up their research, that the resulting conclusions, however obviously flawed, must be enshrined in an article?! Please say that we haven't reached this level of logical fallacy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.179.5.39 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/Talk%7EJeff_V._Merkey_a198.html"