From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion from Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I challenge and assert POV pushing throughout the article. None of the emails have been verified and a lot of speculation on the section about Linux Kernel, Linux Kernel Buyout Offer, Peyote Offer, Lawsuits and Threats, and just about every section except those which state simple facts. The article does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards for an article on Indigineous Peoples, and appears to be a POV platform for SCOX message board members to engage in personal attacks and smearing of the subject of the article. Article fails WP:NPOV and WP:V since it relies on dubious sources and unverified emails from a public mailing list which allows anyone to post to it, including spam and phishing emails of which tens of thousands appear to exist on this list at [[1]] which would indicate the list allows anonymous posting and anyone could have forged the content, including some of the authors of this article. The authors added it to the Cherokee Tribe category and Cherokee People which brings the article under the Indigeneous Peoples Project and are opposing any changes and even questions about the content and lowering themselves to attack other editors on the basis of sexual orientation and make sockpuppetry allegations against any editor of the article outside of a small group of editors, User:Pgk included. Waya sahoni 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure why I warrant a special mention, please show me where I have attacked anyone based on sexual orientation or alleged sockpuppetry. I have removed uncited material, I have invited those doing so to cite their sources, so far they have declined. Since you feel an need to only mention my id side by side with your claims, I take you accusation as a personal attack, please provide a backup for your claim or withdraw it. --pgk^(talk) 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am including you in the original group of editors who oppose all changes or improvements to the article, and your comments speak for themselves. You also have an account on SCOX of pgk and Pgk and PG_King, if I am wrong I apologize and withdraw the comments. However, I am right you wrote and incorporated most of the article content on LKML with the other editors. Waya sahoni 23:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I must pose the question as to whether it is more likely that A) Jeff Merkey's entire posting history online is an illuminati style conspiracy of worldwide hackers comprimising various and sundry accounts, computers and mailing lists all in an effort to make someone look foolish or B) it's just Jeff Merkey experiencing latent remorse while reviewing his copious writings brought to light on Wikipedia. Occam was right.

cool it folks. no more revert warring on this page.--Alhutch 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alhutch, as an admin, please take a look at the history of this article and make a determination regarding the NPOV. I believe that the article is well cited and has been for some time. I also believe that Waya sahoni is Jeff Merkey trying to evade a ban. Check the tracert information and Waya sahoni home page links for solid proof.

Alhutch, the article relies on dubious emails not atributable to the subject of the article. I would propose splitting the article similair to the way the Ward Churchill article has been divided. This will allow us to create an adequate article under indigeneous peoples and allow these people to continue using wikipedia for a message board. I would suggest that you consider that wikipedia is suffering for donations because of these types of activities and allegation from groups it is misused. We need to present a quality image with our content to improve the encyclopedia. Not the manure in this article written by message board trolls. Waya sahoni 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, let's all just chill out. Wikipedia is important, but it's not the end of the world. no more heated rhetoric, no more accusations of trolling or vandalism. really, try to reduce the stress. step away from the computer for a few minutes if you have to. then we can figure out what's going on here.--Alhutch 06:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got cleanup work to do on several dozen articles, so I will go off and work on that this weekend -- I have to upload some images and complete Cherokee Dance. I will be back to review the verification explanation for people claiming anonymous mailing lists are "WP:V" sources. Waya sahoni 06:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this article doesn't belong in LKML. LKML is a 3 sentence article. People wanting to know about the LKML would be swamped with irrelevant info if we were to fill it with the bits of the JVM article that you don't happen to like. And people looking for info about you are unlikely to type in 'LKML' into Wikipedia, so the information certainly belongs in Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. As for the WP:V red herring, Jeff - well I consider the fact that you've gone out of your way to deny only a small number of the postings on the LKML as indirect confirmation that you accept that the other posts are authored by you. Now leave wikipedia alone, Jeff. You're blocked permanently. --Aim Here 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry, Wikipedia does not allow message boards and mailing lists to be used as primary or secondary sources. Waya sahoni 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you're being obtuse because you want the article deleted at all costs, but I'll argue with you anyway. If you read the policy, it's there because of of problems confirming the authorship of posts to those boards. Other than the peyote offer, where your denial is mentioned, there is NO dispute over the authorship of the Jeff Merkey LKML posts, even though Jeff is clearly aware of their existence and of what they say. In short, by indirectly confirming most of the LKML posts as genuine, YOU become our primary source, Jeff. Enjoy! --Aim Here 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response regarding statement of NPOV

• I have changed the title added to this suggesting this was a review of the article by me for neutrality, it was not, it was a response to a basic accusation of NPOV. --pgk^(talk) 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement of why you believe this is NPOV is flawed, please read WP:NPOV, the standard for NPOV. The requirement is not that the material referenced by merely dry factual information or in itself not biased (If we insisted on that then many articles would be blank), but that a range of material from assorted points of view is presented based on the apparent popularity of that view point. The quotes from the LKML are fully verified, they were undoubtedly posted to the LKML of which many independant archives exist, the article draws no conclusion as to the truth or otherwise of the content contained in those mails which is fully in line with the NPOV requirement. If you believe the source of those mails is in question, where the apparent author has explicitly denied authoring the mail that has been duly noted, the authorship of the other mails is not in dispute. --pgk^(talk) 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's analyze that position. Wikipedia defines reputable sources and bias in an article as:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources define prohibited sources as:

Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

Unattributed material

Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them.

It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?" If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.

For advice about dealing with unattributed material when you find it, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which are policy, and Wikipedia:Cite sources, which is a style guide.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Surprising or important facts which are not widely known. Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media. Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them. Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

Based upon these definitions, weblog content, emails on LKML, websites which are "mirrors" of disputed content, blogs, and other publications are not reputable sources are do not constitute verifiable information. in fact, the information is specially barred and characterized as without enclyclopedic merit.

This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

Types of bias include:

Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism. NOTE: The peyote offer section is a complete slam on the subjects religious belief and as written can be characterized by someone who is Native as racial stereotyping, esspecially since the NAC religion is controlled and regulated by the government and is only allowed to be practiced by indians. This section I find extremely offensive and most native people would too, and it is not a message that will ever appear in featured articles on this site. This content limits the quality of the article since it paints a racial stereotype.

• That is absolute nonsense the peyote section makes no reference to the legitimacy or otherwise of peyote use as a part of religous practice. You are reading into it something which simply isn't there. The section is factually accurate, a post was made to the LKML from someone purporting to be Merkey and controversy ensued. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Corporate bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media. NOTE: There is advertising on the main page links to David Wheeler, Groklaw, and several other websites which solicit "donations" for their content. Links to these sites evidence favor to the interests of the owners of these media because, and results in wikipedia forwarding readers to these sites. This is in direct violation of Wikipedias policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a message board or a weblog. The content must meet appropriate standards. It is up to the Wikimedia Foundation which organizations they will or will not endorse or publicly associate themselves with, not encyclopedia editors -- this is not our job.

• They are legitimate sources. Inclusion of these as sources is not endorsing them, similarly wikimedia foundation does not endorse any of the other websites linked in any of the articles. Suggesting there presence is purely advertising is ludicrous. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions. NOTE: The biased tone of the text related to the LKML materials is creating a division of class between the subject and the FOSS and Linux social classes and communities.

• No other people in Merkey's "class" aren't having bias reflected against them because of their class, the issue is Merkey himself unless you are including him in a class of one, which is clearly not the intent of the policy. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party or candidate. NOTE: The subjects political views are made an issue, including his political statements in Court documents. There are bold headings over these section and they evidence bias in their tone and content. They appear to intentionally create division by class.

• I disagree, again the article does not endorse any particular political standpoint, highlighting the subjects political view point is not introducing bias (better go and delete all those articles on politicians) --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others. NOTE: The subjects religious beliefs are mocked and ridculed and characterized as "drug use", including links to "encyclopedia dramatica" which makes allegations of drug use and is an attack on Native Religions.

• No the use of peyote from a religious standpoint is not characterized as drug use it is neither condemn nor condone, like your above charges of ridiculing Merkeys religion you are reading into the article something which isn't even vaguely hinted at. The link is noted clearly as an example of individuals ridiculing Merkey i.e. it is not endorsing the view, regardless I cannot imagine anyone reading that article and taking it as anything as over the top satire. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings. NOTE: The LKML purchase offer has been totally overemphasized and is a moot point. In reading this and reading about linux on the internet, I do find it notable that this was the first documented case an individual attempted to "purchase" the rights to linux with a real offer. This is notable. However, it is not notable enough to dominate the article with an entire section which is based on emails from a unverrifiable source.

• I disagree, the offer is a significant event and the situation surrounding it and the increased prominence the emails bought are signficiant. The relevance of the source of those emails is limited, the point is that Merkey (fairly or otherwise) as a result of those emails became a very public figure and many were unhappy about it, that is what the article documents, not the truth or otherwise of the mails. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere. Characterizations on the subject and his culture are distorted. Since native nations are sovereign they are unique cultural geographies even though they are distributed. Comments and speculation in the LKML purchase offer and the subjects motives are boldly quoted without verification and citation. The content and tone spin the represetnation contrary to the truth. I know what the subject was offering and doing in our culture. What is portrayed is completely inaccurate and not what is available in our cultural resource center as citable references.

• Your certainly stretching it here, Merkeys status as a Native American is totally irrelevant, if he was of any other ethnic backgroud the section would be the same, you seem to have a common theme here of trying to spin this as being an article critical of Native Americans, it isn't. The article reports on others speculation and reports on Merkey's response to that speculation, it is fully within the bounds of NPOV. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says about factual and verifiable content:

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) There are several statements here, "Growlaw investigating", "has denied", "has not denied", "true worth of linux kernel".

• Huh? --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. The article contain negative facts, and review of the history pages shows positive or even additional facts in unrelated areas have been removed by Pgk, MediaMangler, jerryg, Aim Here, Kebron, and a large number of IP addresses over time and in a combined and concerted "revert war" effort by using democratic power rather than argument or journalistic or intellectual debate. This does not reflect a concerted effort by individual editors to improve the article, but rather a "mob" or political group abusing unit power to disrupt the enclyclopedia.

• As noted repeatedly everyone has been invited to cites sources for the material they have added, when they are unable to do so the material cannot stand. You have added cited material which is still within the article. Information critical of Merkey has similarly been removed by me as failing to meet the required standard and other sections have been re-written by me to remove speculative and blatantly POV information critical of Merkey. Selectively reading the history is something we can all do, it proves nothing. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). All of the LKML material falls within this category.

• I disagree, the LKML material is the source of most of the rest of the article of course it takes a certain amount of promince. It was the LKML posting which caused the speculation regarding an association with SCO, without that speculation etc. The lawsuit was unlikely to have started etc. etc. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. LKML purchase offer, the subjects motives in the Native Community, Lawsuits and Threats, and few verifiable citations.

• I disagree, but you would need to be more specific as to your claims as to the writing of which parts insinuates such, this is of course going to be highly subjective. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. Ditto

• Ditto --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious. Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. The lawsuit and threats section and purchase offer section violate this section.

• This section is more or less a factual statement, there is little other information outside that available concerning this, so there is little other viewpoint to represent, please find the verifiable article which states Merkey is right in persuing this lawsuit. We can't reflect viewpoints which don't exist. ---pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above analisys, I am going to restructure the article in the following manner and in compliance with policy:

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

and

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources.

I am going to structure the article similiar to the Ward Churchill article, with a section on the subject and a link to a section titled "merkey controversies". The self published sources of LKML and these weblogs (which ae not reputable news publications with perhaps the exception of Groklaw) belong on another page, and provided the controversies are notable, and may be used in 'Articles About Themselves". Waya sahoni 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagrgree, the article has no such problems. The LKML as a source appears to be your main qualm and I disagree with your analysis of NPOV. The LKML is a totally acceptable source for what has/hasn't been said on the LKML. It is not being used as a source of facts outside those boundaries. i.e. It is not required to have independant sources for what has been printed in a newspaper (say) the newspaper does that. I disagree totally with your suggestion reagarding restructuring. --pgk^(talk) 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Would you care to discuss the matter further or should we initiate a mediation over the content? I note that before you became an admin, you were an editor of this article. I also note most (if not all) of the biased edits were made by you. I also note you have an account on SCOX of PG_King. Comments? Waya sahoni 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree with your interpretation of the policy and its intent. Sorry I have not said the matter could not be discussed further so quite why you believe otherwise I don't know. I have no interest in undertaking mediation, the consensus on the format and content of this article needs to be established, if someone is unhappy at that point, then an RFC concerning the article would (to my mind) be far more appropriate. I'm not sure what relevance you believe my status as an admin and it's timescale relative to editing this article has to do with anything. You are also free to believe/speculate whatever you want regarding potential identities for me elsewhere, it has no relevance here so I'm not sure why you have felt the need to suggest that twice now. --pgk^(talk) 20:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

LKML is classified under Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a bulletin board. Bulletin boards may not be used as primary or secondary sources. I will check back in for your response to this, and when if I do not hear from you with rational and intellectual prose explaining your views, I will begin working on the article in compliance with "The Policy" on the above refrenced pages. The LKML discssions should be moved to the LKML article and judged by the editors of that article based on their merit for inclusion. Waya sahoni 19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have outlined my views, the LKML is being used as a source for itself, much of the controversy surrounds those mails, regardless of who actually made them. The LKML is a perfectly legitimate source for that information. As with a proposal to make any major changes it is advised that you attempt to obtain consensus first prior to making such changes, not only is it a courtesy to other editors it can avoid conflict. The discussion is too young and has to few contributors to give any view of what such a consensus may be. --pgk^(talk) 20:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Policy" does not require consensus regarding barred materials. I have no obligation to cite inappropriate content. Whatever your views, they are in violation with Wikipedia policy -- weblogs, mailing lists, and bulletin boards may not be used as primary or secondary sources. I am moving the content on LKML to the LKML article. I have notifed other admins on the project of your involvement, and my belief you are a shill for SCOX planted here and posing as a legitimate editor. Since you have edited the article in question, you need to refrain from interferring unless you plan to help. I am not removing the content from the encyclopedia, I am moving it to a page which is about LKML. You may assist me or you can go with me to mediation. Which is your choice? Waya sahoni 22:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The LKML section in this article is relevant to this article. There is no claim that you wrote these mails, only that someone purporting to be you did. It is also noted that you have denied authorship of the mails. None of this is in dispute.

It is permissible to craft a link in the main article linking to the content similiar to the way the Ward Churchill article is structured. POV and dubios sources are permitted in the encyclopedia provided they are within a page about that topic. There are two choices: A) merge the content into LKML or create a new article called Jeffrey Vernon Merkey LKML Controversies. As it stands, the article violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the content can be removed under these guidelines. If you want the content retained, those are the options. This will allow the Indigeneous Peoples project to produce a high quality article and at the same time allow the SCOX editors to produce dubios content which is appropriately labeled. Waya sahoni 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary for this article. Futhermore, it is not allowed for an account which is an obvious sockpuppet for a banned user, I'm looking at you Jeff, to eviscerate relevant content in a vain attempt to obfuscate subject of the article's record.

This account is not a sockpuppet and your continued assertions are falling on deaf ears. The only evidence of misconduct is your own, three vandalisms of my user page, personal attacks about my sexual orientation, and multiple warnings on your talk page about WP:NPA and Vandalism. The record speaks for itself. Waya sahoni 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I was getting all spun-up to write a long diatribe about how ludicrous it is to claim that anyone other than Merkey wrote those emails. While that question is of considerable interest to me professionally, you are correct that it is completely immaterial to whether or not they should be referenced in the article or even to how they should be referenced. Wikipedia has an obligation to note any denial of authorship, not to determine the truth of such a denial. — MediaMangler 13:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Detailed research into the email headers of the Merkey LKML posts in question prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Merkey himself made those posts. This point covers Merkey posts of any relevant chronological range. The best Merkey has been able to do in the past is to attempt to assert that unauthorized access to his computer accounts for, particularly, the famous "Mon, 24 Sep 2001, I am sending him (James Mooney) enough peyote to trip out half the city" post. http://lkml.org/lkml/headers/2001/9/24/253. Ironically, Merkey has alleged that it is Mooney himself who gained illicit access to his (Merkey's) computer.

Any attempt to move the flagged portions of the current Jeffrey Vernon Merkey page off to a LKML page is a cheap attempt to hide more of Merkey's verified history.

Note that Wikipedia's laudible philosophy of NPV can be, and is being seriously gamed by someone who has a consistent, long-term, verified history of creating and revising his own separate reality as situations change.

This, from someone who has expended a *considerable* amount of time researching Merkey's history and antics.

Well, LKML does not fall within Wikpedias policies as a usable primary or secondary source. Waya sahoni 05:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just keep repeating that Jeff, I'm sure everyone will eventually fall down and see the light.Why you so hawny? 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)