The Jeff Merkey Thread, JVM tries his hand at the "Brandt problem," other stuff Options Rating

If one of the regulars starts reverting out Merkey, I wonder if Jimmy will step in on Merkey's behalf...

I think that's already happened. See the case of Merkey, encapsulated in the short history of the banning of Vigilant - a sock created to stalk Merkey. Vigilant got banned for his troubles: here. Whereupon he continued to troll Merkey as a random URL here

The deal seems to be that Merkey has some anti-fans related to his Linux work, or company, or whatever, who want to annoy the crap out of him. Apparently this was part of his lawsuit history - getting them off his back. He won a lot ground, but some of them apparently are using Wikipedia to keep the war going.

Merkey is hi-tech old money (if there is such a thing), so that's why he gets Jimbo's ear. Good for the admins for calling him/her on their bs. It was Tony Sideaway who blocked him here. .

My question is: Will there be a DSM-III classification for people like this? A mental disorder defined for people who are as weird as this "Vigilant" character? Who seek to stalk and defame like this? There really should be.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Mon 7th May 2007, 4:10pm

User:Friendly_Neighbour never got blocked, though. (See this talk page archive for still more wacky Wiki-antics...)

I'm beginning to see Merkey as more of a Knight-Errant Syndrome sufferer. That's a person who goes around looking for conflicts to resolve, shows up all of a sudden in the midst of a heated dispute, and decides he's going to "save the day" and that the solution is "really very simple," which of course implies that all of the involved parties are idiots for not seeing it all along. And then, when his brilliant solution inevitably fails, the rest is predictable - outbursts of hostility, followed by increasingly irrational behavior, culminating in an indefinite ban. I've seen it before in Wikiland - most recently last November/December on Uncyclopedia, which means Dave Gerard saw it too. Given Merkey's previous track record, I see no reason not to believe the same thing could happen here.

It's a bit sad, really... Someone like that could really do a lot of good, even in Wikiland, if he only had a "clue" or two about what's really going on.

I wouldn't take Merkey's claims about someone wanting to kill him seriously. One of his claims in the lawsuit against Bruce Perens was that Perens was trying to have him killed, when Perens was telling folks to put Merkey in a "killfile" (Computer geeks know that that's a list of people whose posts you want to delete automatically, so you don't have to deal with them), but Merkey took it as "a list of people to be killed") *rolls eyes*

Merkey had a great big plan to buy out Linux for 50K or so and relicense it under another software license. It got to the point where Linus publically slapped him down.

As I said, get the popcorn folks, I have a feeling that the "show" is just beginning.

User:Friendly_Neighbour never got blocked, though. (See this talk page archive for still more wacky Wiki-antics...)

I'm beginning to see Merkey as more of a Knight-Errant Syndrome sufferer. That's a person who goes around looking for conflicts to resolve, shows up all of a sudden in the midst of a heated dispute, and decides he's going to "save the day" and that the solution is "really very simple," which of course implies that all of the involved parties are idiots for not seeing it all along. And then, when his brilliant solution inevitably fails, the rest is predictable - outbursts of hostility, followed by increasingly irrational behavior, culminating in an indefinite ban. I've seen it before in Wikiland - most recently last November/December on Uncyclopedia, which means Dave Gerard saw it too. Given Merkey's previous track record, I see no reason not to believe the same thing could happen here.

It's a bit sad, really... Someone like that could really do a lot of good, even in Wikiland, if he only had a "clue" or two about what's really going on.

Exactly. Merkey is admittedly brilliant, but he's the complete ANTI-Wikipedian (doesn't play well with groups, never has a backup plan when his "brilliant" plan runs into rocks and shoals, and a tendency to fly off the handle)

As I said, get the popcorn folks, I have a feeling that the "show" is just beginning.

I don't know that I would call Merkey a "vandal extraordinare" based on what I know at this point, but he does seem to be quite the drama queen.
LET THE DRAMARAMA BEGIN!

Sweet loving Jesus what a thread. I don't know where to start. I'll take a single broad swipe then confine myself to a narrow point.

Broad Swipe: When I encouraged intervention by a credible, neutral, and independent dispute resolution professional Merkey was not what I had in mind.

Narrow point: I would like to consider the ACLU/EFF's Amicus Brief concerning the discovery of the real identities of pseudonymous actors in the "Merkey v Internet" action. Because Merekey had not addressed the underlying issues at all in his motion, they are not merely responding to points Merkey has raised. They are informing the court from the ground up. This makes that brief a veritable practice manual on the proper basis and foundation needed to secure discovery of this information, which is subject to a qualified privilege based in the first amendment (yes sometimes it does indirectly apply to non-state actors ---here via the court's governmental role in compelling discovery) Reviewing relevant cases the brief lays out a four prong test 1)good faith need for the information 2)relates to important ("core") issue- not some side issue 3)is relevant 4) adequate information is not available from another source.

The brief also argues that efforts should be made, if possible, provide notice to and give annons a chance to respond to the request to compel disclosure of there identities.

It is easy to see how this would play out via the identifies of admins and relevant editors of BLP articles on WP. It also seems that this is a standard that a plaintiff can meet and that ISPs,WP and others can be compelled to disclose what ever information they possess. It also shows a valid lawful need to collect whatever information is available concerning potential parties and witnesses in related actions.

I don't know that I would call Merkey a "vandal extraordinare" based on what I know at this point, but he does seem to be quite the drama queen.

I suspect Merkey himself would prefer "Vandal Extraordinaire," though...

Still, maybe we should try something else to describe this phenomenon. Here's a few ideas:

Jeff Merkey, Man of the Century
Jeff Merkey to the res-CUE! (has a nice ring to it)
Jeff takes charge, saves day
Spotlight on Merkey (yet again)
Gimme a J! Gimme an E! Gimme an F...
"But I *AM* a great biographer!"
Jeffrey with TWO F's
Merkey: Back to the Drawing Board
The Quality of Merkey is Not Apparent
Super-Jeff!

The Quality of Merkey is Not Apparent

Too Shakespearean...

Who had Moreschi in the "First to disagree with Merkey" pool?

Who had Moreschi in the "First to disagree with Merkey" pool?

Not me! And so far the only one to disagree

This Merkey rewrite is starting to look like one of the most elaborate and subtly-done incidents of "trolling" in Wikipedia history. They should just revert the whole thing and tell the guy to get lost, before it ends up being the thing that convinces a judge to award serious damages.

UPDATE:

Now Merkey and Co. are trying to add cites to his new "Positive Impacts on the Wikipedia Community" section, so that Moreschi won't delete it. Such as this one and this one, neither of which mention Brandt at all, even in passing, and this BLP talk archive, and two links to wikipedia-watch.org that will probably be excised because it's still considered an "attack site"!

Is this a joke or something? Because, you know, it's not funny if you have to explain it...?

Not that the entire site isn't a joke at this point...

Is this a joke or something? Because, you know, it's not funny if you have to explain it...?

I think that Merkey's subtle editorial hammer is going to lead to the 14th AfD nomination, if he keeps this up.

Who had Moreschi in the "First to disagree with Merkey" pool?

Boy, it looks like he must have grown his balls back or something.....



This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 7th May 2007, 8:16pm

Boy, it looks like he must have grown his balls back or something.....

He certainly seems to be intent on mentioning Katefan0 every chance he can get... He'd only been registered for what, six weeks when that happened?

Here are some more title ideas:

Aww, now look what you've done!
If you can't trust Jeff Merkey, who CAN you trust?
What was once clear is now Merkey
First Novell Corporation, now THIS
Look mom, no research!
Armor, maybe, not so shiny after all...?

Exactly. Merkey is admittedly brilliant, but he's the complete ANTI-Wikipedian (doesn't play well with groups, never has a backup plan when his "brilliant" plan runs into rocks and shoals, and a tendency to fly off the handle)

But someone at his level doesn't have to follow the rules. He's going over the heads of the plebians and straight to the top.

The problem is that with his personality, he doesn't understand DB's sensibilities. He means well.

I think he "gets" WP quite well. He just don't deign to fiddle with the little people.

I don't see a drama coming out of this. Most of the real drama are people who were attacking him from an old event, pre-WP, and he handled that.

Oops! Uh, sorry... I'll, uh, just be moving along then, why don't I...

At this point, I am stepping away from the article.

Wise.

CYOA

That thing is far bigger than him.

I think he "gets" WP quite well. He just don't deign to fiddle with the little people.

On Wikipedia, even the Mighty are fallen by this. The more Merkey pushes ahead on matters irregardless of fallout chaff--if he takes that tact in an ongoing fashion--he'll lose and drama will begin to swirl in his wake as the e-vultures will smell wikideath coming.

I don't see a drama coming out of this.

See above. If the Brandt work doesn't do it, ongoing behavior like it will.

Also, his tone in that Edits Concluded bit is a bit pretentious. He's one editor, and his I Am A Very Special Person schtick will get old very, very fast. He's a schlub on-wiki like everyone else. Even the hard-core Ultra Cabal people don't make proclamations in that sort of tone!

CYOA... That thing is far bigger than him.

Probably, though I hear he's pretty big...!

Still, I don't blame the guy so much, really. Well, maybe I do, but let's face it, it's one of those ludicrous situations where you just look at it and think, "WTF?" And it would be so easily solved, permanently, with just a few mouse clicks... But they just can't manage to do it. And so things like this are bound to happen.

I mean, look at the major players in the Brandt Persecution WikiProject Extravaganzo so far. The problem was started by the single most unpopular, if not hated, administrator on the entire website - but at least she had the sense to delete it. Then it was restored by a guy who's openly pro-Google, an obvious conflict of interest. The first major editor to "flesh it out" was a transsexual who makes a living selling "hair removal solutions" for, well, other transsexuals. Then all sorts of people got involved - a guy who runs what may be the most popular fan website devoted to the pop singer Tiffany in the entire world; a converted Rastafarian British expatriate living somewhere in Central America who once wrote, "is Daniel Brandt's privacy worth the colllapse of America? I don't think so"; at least one former associate of Brandt's whose conflict of interest in editing the article is so blatant as to be comical; and now, a controversial IT millionaire who once wrote that Jimbo Wales "operates a porno distribution business over the internet and wikipedia.org, the online encyclopedia, which distributes pornography over the internet." Hey, at least that last guy is right about something...!

But seriously, anyone want to take three guesses as to why so many of these people desperately want to remain anonymous?

Meanwhile, at least two, maybe three admins have been desysopped over this whole affair, and who knows how many perfectly good editors have left in disgust. (And for good reason!)

And all for one stupid web page. Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell's going over over there.

I think that where Merkey went wrong was to try to send this back to the peanut gallery... when you get any controversy on WP going, every nutjob, teenager & drama-queen comes out of the woodwork, with the remaining few normal editors checking in as well.

I think that Merkey knows the landscape - but thought that it could be worked out - because he's seeing it through the eyes of his own position - which is rarefied. He's working his own deal out, but he has support of JW. And he *wants* to be part of the community. DB doesn't.

Esp. after all has been said and done. The way to go would have been to focus solely on the page coming down (coming down, coming down - repeat, coming down). Instead, there was an unban which just sent DB straight back to hell. Not much of a concession.

The only solution is a page removal, by Jimbo himself.

I think that Merkey totally understands how violated DB could feel. He's sued the hell out of a lot of people who were stalking him on the web. But he's forgotten that this gave him perspective, and he's not only rich, but sick of fighting. DB didn't have that opportunity.

Merkey shouldn'tve tried to impose a solution "on behalf of" DB. He meant well, but it wasn't his place.

Anyways, if he was going to be pushy, to push for removal of the page would have been preferred.

It was a missed opportunity.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Mon 7th May 2007, 11:19pm