Merkey claims he paid for a fair bio, Jimbo snarls back Options

From the foundation mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/039545.html

Sun, Mar 9, 2008 - Jeffrey Vernon Merkey wrote:
>
> I am notifying the foundation I was approached on Friday by the Associated
> Press regarding statements attributed to me which are in some way,
> perceived to be related to Mr. Wales private affairs which seem to have
> gotten a great deal of press coverage. I have a detailed collection of
> email exchanges with Mr. Wales and Foundation employees over some period
> of time which seem to be of apparent interest to various parties involved
> in this controversy, and I have informed all parties that I will of course
> disclose such materials subject only to a lawful subpoena or other
> instrument as required by law since they contain confidential discussions
> regarding business dealings with the Foundarion. I have, however, been
> asked for a formal statement admitting or denying various allegations
> which purport to claim my involvement in any of Mr. Wales business
> activities.
>
> Since I am obligated to protect my own good name, I feel compelled to
> address various allegations in order to distance myself from this
> controversy involving Mr. Wales so the facts are not spun into something
> they are not. As such, I issued the following statement to the associated
> press in response to their inquiries regarding my involvement with Mr.
> Wales and his business dealings. This statement was sent on Friday, March
> 7, 2008.
>
>
> --- STATEMENT TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ---
>
> "According to Merkey, in 2006, Wales agreed that in exchange for a
> substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia
> Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's
> article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet
> libel "as a courtesty" and place Merkey under his "special protection"
> as an editor. Merkey later withdrew his financial support of the
> Wikipedia project after reviewing evidence of diversion and
> mismanagement of the charities funds by Wales and the Wikimedia Board of
> Trustees and was immediately banned from the Wikipedia site by the
> Arbitration Committee for frivilous and unsubstanciated claims after he
> terminated the payments of $5,000.00 per year to the Wikimedia
> Foundation."
>
>
> --- END OF STATEMENT ---
>
> I hope this clarifies the rumors and allegations being posted on various
> blogs. As I am certain everyone is aware, I have continued development
> of my Wikipedia projects and kept a safe distance from the Foundation
> since these events, and I plan to continue to develop tools and refine
> machine translation for Cherokee and other languages, however, I have
> little interest in becoming embroilled in the internal affairs of the
> Foundation or Wikipedia at present, and in fact, have no need to do so in
> order to accomplish my objectives and use Wikipedia's high quality content
> for my projects.
>
> I wish Mr. Wales and everyone the very best, and hope these issues can be
> sorted out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Sun, Mar 9, 2008 - Jimmy Wales reply:
I encourage anyone who is tempted to believe this story to consider the
source.

So, did I read this right? Jimmy didn't deny, he merely spit venom at Merkey?

Isn't Merkey a bureaucrat on the Cherokee site? Is Jimbo denouncing one of his own bureaucrats?

Merkey is a kook, he throws legal threats around like they are candy. The arb case involving him was a joke, he tried to treat it like a court of law (like User:Lir has been doing recently - see the blanked history of his talk page).

Merkey is a kook, he throws legal threats around like they are candy. The arb case involving him was a joke, he tried to treat it like a court of law (like User:Lir has been doing recently - see the blanked history of his talk page).

Say what you want about Merkey...the things he's alleging check out.

I could run through them here, but I've already written about the situation here on AntiSocialMedia.net so I'll just pull from that:
Merkey is a computer scientist and entrepreneur whose Wikipedia article came under attack by several editors critical of his professional associations.

According to Merkey, in 2006, Wales told him that in exchange for a substantial donation, Wales could use his influence to make Merkey’s article more agreeable, and to place Merkey himself under Wales’s “special protection” as an editor.

Merkey made a $5,000 donation and hinted at the possibility of something much larger in the future.

Merkey claims, and the record confirms, that following his donation, Wales personally made several edits to the Merkey article, including a complete blanking of the article and destruction of its edit history (extreme steps to take under any circumstances, and doubly so considering it happened without any effort at reaching consensus, which is supposedly the coin of the Wikipedia realm).

When he announced his unilateral “start-over” on the article, Wales offered:

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.

A priceless response came 20 minutes later by wikipedian Aim Here, who asked:

“…Have you been making secret dealings behind everyone’s back? So much for Wikipedia’s openness.”

To which Wales nervously responded:

“Secret dealings? What on earth are you talking about?”

To which wikipedian Aim Here replied:

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, suddenly 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…

If this exchange seems familiar, it may be because it roughly resembles this one, which followed Jimbo Wales’ unilateral blanking of the debate over the proposed deletion of the article autobiography on Gary Weiss:

The page contained wildly inappropriate speculation that a notable author was sockpuppeting. As I am sure you are aware, many authors have had their careers badly damaged by being caught sockpuppeting at Amazon, etc., and it is deeply wrong for people to ask me to restore a page with such speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed. If there are further problems in the future, there will be no problem restoring the article at that time.

As an aside, based on Wales’s promise that “If there are further problems in the future, there will be no problem restoring the article at that time,” wikipedian Cool Hand Luke asked Jimbo for permission to un-delete the deletion debate in order to reference it during the present ArbCom case relating directly to the matter of Gary Weiss and his conflict of interest on Wikipedia.

Jimbo’s response: “I see no benefit in doing so.”

Conclusion
As the Rachel Marsden example demonstrates, when he’s “getting something” in return, Jimbo Wales is willing to use his position to influence Wikipedia article content.

As the Jeff Merkey example demonstrates, in addition to female companionship, that “something” can also come in the form of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Alright Mr Wales,

Since you have decided to publicly respond and lie about it (not that you
have not been caught lying to the public before).

I just sent **ALL** of the emails to the associated press exposing yet
more of your lies and deceit.

Have a great day.

:-)

Jeff

I guess he doesn't feel like playing the Jimbo game. I can't wait to see the AP news.

Alright Mr Wales,

Since you have decided to publicly respond and lie about it (not that you
have not been caught lying to the public before).

I just sent **ALL** of the emails to the associated press exposing yet
more of your lies and deceit.

Have a great day.

:-)

Jeff

I guess he doesn't feel like playing the Jimbo game. I can't wait to see the AP news.

But is an AP story a verifiable and a reliable source?? We've all been asking that question for years rhetorically for BLP issues for marginally-famous people, and the answer is always: "Yes. Tough shit for the person being targetted by the press. We're in the business of verifiability here at Wikipedia, not truth."

Okay. Hey, Jimbo, here's some verifiable stuff about to be shoved up your living bio. And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, since you're the very person who's permitted this, and benefitted from it, at the cost of others. As this very information shows.

Damn, my "justice" center is being tickled like crazy. I feel like a dog being rubbed in that special way that causes the hind leg spasms. Ah. Oh. Eeeeeh.

Merkey is a kook,

fwiw, a witch-hunt mob of anonymous teenagers were saying the same thing about Brandt, who in my experience, is not a "kook".

in my experience, WP is over-run with kooks, many of which are under the "notable editors" section here, and think they run the show at WP.

The god-king himself, while maybe not kooky, is most certainly not the sharpest bit to ever strike oil accidently.

Sorry, I've recently seen Daniel Day-Lewis's tour de force:


I'VE ABANDONED MY COMMUNITY !!!

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Mon 10th March 2008, 2:32am

But is an AP story a verifiable and a reliable source??

If they don't want it to be a "reliable source" for Wikipedia all they, they being Jimmy, Guy, whomever, have to do is announce loudly that the article is flawed for x reason, and that's that. That's how they suppress all the Register articles that Cade Metz writes.

If the Associated Press runs with and investigates Merkey's allegations, however, then Jimmy et al are in for what the kids today call the "butt hurt".

Jimmy was smart to not outright deny Merkey's allegations, whether they were true or not. It gives him a theoretical out. If, and big if, they were true and that Merkey did buy influence from Wikipedia and Jimmy denied it, it would have been catastrophically bad. If it's true, he can now theoretically spin it in a way not as damning. If it's false, and he denied Merkey forcefully, it may have been possible to give Merkey a legal avenue to take on the WMF or Jimmy legally for character assassination or something similar. With the latter scenario, it would have forced Merkey to put his cards on the table.

As it turns out, Jimmy took the former approach to try to cover himself either way, and basically told Merkey: "I call your bluff. Show your hand."

If Merkey did indeed do so, it will like sorta bad for Merkey if it's true, if he allegedly bought influence. How much worse will it be for the WMF and Jimmy, however, if true?

If this is true, and was orchestrated by Jimmy, I can see the WMF board taking a very, very unhappy position on this. Jimmy is not overly valuable anymore to Wikipedia as a figurehead. The brand--"Wikipedia"--is self-sustaining now, and he needs Wikipedia more than they need him. Between all the recent controversy with Marsden, and Danny, and now this, if true? Jimmy could find himself off the board FAST.

So, did I read this right? Jimmy didn't deny, he merely spit venom at Merkey?

When asked to call it nonsense ("Please Jimmy, say it ain't so!!"), he called it nonsense.
---
this message from Jeff will be interesting too.

Something that will probably interest thekohser is this message. I'm not entirely sure what the guy is trying to say. Is he trying to say that Jimbo is not a hypocrite and therefore this allegation is false? If that is what he's saying, the poor fella hasn't been paying attention!

Alright Mr Wales,

Since you have decided to publicly respond and lie about it (not that you
have not been caught lying to the public before).

I just sent **ALL** of the emails to the associated press exposing yet
more of your lies and deceit.

Have a great day.

:-)

Jeff

I guess he doesn't feel like playing the Jimbo game. I can't wait to see the AP news.

oh, snap!!

ya know, wordb, that does sound very similiar to l'affair d'Jimbo and Weiss....

did these cultists just not read the IM's between the spoogethrower and the Canadian Spunkgoalie, about her BLP?

it's been laid out in spades, in public, that grudges, legal threats, donations, and bootycalls DO OVERRIDE NPOV, Jimbo, lol.

the wikipedia community is storming the bastille while the virgin queens and courtesans retort with suggestions for dessert.

wordb, please tell us some some of those 1,841 garybombs, 'specially the ones around Oct-Nov 2006, involve e-persuasion attempts from a certain gary to a certain jimbo....it would just fit the pattern so well...

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Mon 10th March 2008, 2:55am

In politics, they call this kind of stuff influence peddling.

Here, I'd be tempted to call it effluence peddling.

Or mebbe effluence piddling, given the way everyone is pissing on everyone else.

Turnabout being fair play, I'll dedicate this one to Milt:

JEFF MERKEY'S BACK

He went away
And you hung around and stalked my every edit
And, when I wouldn't go along with you
You said things that weren't very nice

Jeff Merkey's back, and you're gonna be in trouble
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
When you see him comin', better cut on the double
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
You've been spreadin' lies that I was untrue
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
So look out now, 'cause he's comin' after you
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)

Hey, he knows that you've been tryin'
And he knows that you've been lyin'

He's been gone for such a long time
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
Now, he's back, and things will be fine
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
You're gonna be sorry you were ever born
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
'Cause he's really rich and he's awful strong
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)

Hey, he knows I wasn't cheatin'
Now, you're gonna get a beatin'
What made you think he'd believe all your lies?
You're a big man now, but he'll cut you down to size
Wait and see!

Jeff Merkey's back; he's gonna save my reputation
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)
If I were you, I'd submit my resignation
(Hey la, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back)

Hey, I can see him comin'
Now, you better start a-runnin'

*instrumental*

Wait and see!

Jeff Merkey's back; he's gonna save my reputation
La, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back
La, hey la, Jeff Merkey's back

Merkey is a kook,

fwiw, a witch-hunt mob of anonymous teenagers were saying the same thing about Brandt, who in my experience, is not a "kook".

in my experience, WP is over-run with kooks, many of which are under the "notable editors" section here, and think they run the show at WP.

The god-king himself, while maybe not kooky, is most certainly not the sharpest bit to ever strike oil accidently.

Sorry, I've recently seen Daniel Day-Lewis's tour de force:


I'VE ABANDONED MY COMMUNITY !!!

Merkey's credibility is questionable at best. This is the guy that tried to sue the internet and attempted to buy Linux so he could release it under the invincible aegis of the Cherokee nation All of the talk about rampant use of hallucinogenic substances gives a hint as well. ("I am sending him enough peyote to trip out half the city." lol) Or maybe it's all just a conspiracy of gay Wikipedia admins due to "heterosexual persecution."

Merkey is a kook,

fwiw, a witch-hunt mob of anonymous teenagers were saying the same thing about Brandt, who in my experience, is not a "kook".

in my experience, WP is over-run with kooks, many of which are under the "notable editors" section here, and think they run the show at WP.

The god-king himself, while maybe not kooky, is most certainly not the sharpest bit to ever strike oil accidently.

Sorry, I've recently seen Daniel Day-Lewis's tour de force:


I'VE ABANDONED MY COMMUNITY !!!

Merkey's credibility is questionable at best. This is the guy that tried to sue the internet and attempted to buy Linux so he could release it under the invincible aegis of the Cherokee nation All of the talk about rampant use of hallucinogenic substances gives a hint as well. ("I am sending him enough peyote to trip out half the city." lol) Or maybe it's all just a conspiracy of gay Wikipedia admins due to "heterosexual persecution."

sounds qualified to be an admin! can JzG "gays are turd burglars" mentor him for it?

Turnabout being fair play, I'll dedicate this one to Milt:

JEFF MERKEY'S BACK

Bravo! Clap Clap.

Next set from Wolf Mountain and the Raiders:

They took the whole Jeff Merkey bio
Locked it up in durance vile
But though he's wounded in his pride
He's still a `pedian deep inside.

Cherokee people! Cherokee tribe!
So proud to live! So hard to bribe!
And maybe someday when they've learned
Then Jeff Merkey will return
Will Return
Will Return
Will Return

[If Merkey did indeed do so, it will like sorta bad for Merkey if it's true, if he allegedly bought influence. How much worse will it be for the WMF and Jimmy, however, if true?

If the only way to get your bio cleaned was to pay, it is Jimbo in the hotseat, not Merkey.

Jimbo had the moral authority. Everyone else was his bitch. Point finale.

Jimbo called on the carpet.

If this is true, and was orchestrated by Jimmy, I can see the WMF board taking a very, very unhappy position on this. Jimmy is not overly valuable anymore to Wikipedia as a figurehead. The brand--"Wikipedia"--is self-sustaining now, and he needs Wikipedia more than they need him. Between all the recent controversy with Marsden, and Danny, and now this, if true? Jimmy could find himself off the board FAST.

Doubtful. Not unless donors start running, and yahoo dumps their servers.

Which may still happen. Until then, don't hold your breath. That board is full of Jimbo-cronies from way back in the old Chicago gangster days.

Which may still happen. Until then, don't hold your breath. That board is full of Jimbo-cronies from way back in the old Chicago gangster days.

Just the kind of people who'd eat their own if it were necessary.

It wouldn't happen easily, but if the Sole Flounder were to become a true liability, he'd be gone faster than you could say "assume good faith".

Something that will probably interest thekohser is this message. I'm not entirely sure what the guy is trying to say. Is he trying to say that Jimbo is not a hypocrite and therefore this allegation is false? If that is what he's saying, the poor fella hasn't been paying attention!

"Considering Jimmy's reaction to MyWikiBiz, I would have to say that this allegation fails the laugh test."

He is indeed saying that Jimbo is not a hypocrite, and therefore Merkey's allegation is false.

Problem is, as per usual, the Wikipediots rewrite history in their own minds to reflect their given need in the present. Recall, Jimbo's intermediate reaction to MyWikiBiz was to implement a compromise (which he pronounced publicly) that would allow him philosophically to accept paid-for content into the pages of Wikipedia.

Poor Geoffrey Plourde. He's a typical Wikipediot, to use an example against something, which actually proves the opposite side of his argument. I wonder how experienced Mr. Plourde is in the real world? Oh, dear. He's a tenth grader.

If I felt it would do one iota of good, I'd respond accordingly on the Foundation-l mailing list -- but, as Jonny Cache has so ably pointed out -- that would be expecting something that is meta-impossible and only leave me feeling surprised.

Greg

If this turns out to actually be true, what are they going to do? Declare that anti-Wikipedia kooks have infiltrated the Associated Press?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/more-woes-f...5125874243.html

The toughest two weeks of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales's career has just became a whole lot worse, with a former chief scientist at one of the world's biggest technology companies claiming Wales traded Wiki edits for donations.

Jeff Merkey, a former computer scientist at Novell, claims Wales told him in 2006 that in exchange for a substantial donation from Merkey, he would edit his uncomplimentary Wikipedia entry to make it more favourable.

Merkey made a $US5000 ($5455) donation in 2006 and the edit history for his Wikipedia entry showed that, around the same time, Wales personally made changes to the entry after wiping it out completely and ordering editors to start over.

Merkey's claims were published in a statement on a Wikipedia mailing list. On the same mailing list, Wales called the allegation "nonsense".

The claim is the most damning yet against Wales, who was last week accused by a former Wikipedia executive of improperly using the non-profit organisation's funds for his own lavish recreation.

Earlier, an ex-girlfriend, Rachel Marsden, leaked instant messaging transcripts that purported to show Wales using his influence to improperly make changes to Marsden's Wikipedia entry so he could continue "f---ing [her] brains out".

On the Wikipedia mailing list, Wales said he would "never offer, nor accept any offer, whereby a donation would buy someone special editorial treatment in the encyclopedia".

When he erased Merkey's Wikipedia entry in May 2006, Wales told Wikipedia users he did so "because of the unpleasantness of it" and asked them to "be extra careful here to be courteous and assume good faith".

A Wikipedia user, "Aim Here", quickly questioned Wales's reasoning: "Have you been making secret dealings behind everyone's back? So much for Wikipedia's openness."

Following his decision to erase Merkey's entry and start over, Wales placed it under his "special protection". Protected entries can only be edited by Wikipedia administrators.

Wales's edits to the page related to various lawsuits Merkey had been embroiled in.

Merkey was sued by Novell after his departure from the company for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.

In 2005, he filed a harassment lawsuit against various people and organisations including the geek news website Slashdot. Then in 2006 he filed suit against Natural Selection Foods and Delta Air Lines, claiming his son became ill from eating spinach contaminated with E. coli bacteria.