The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion for the following reasons:

1. Jimbo Wales gave his word to me that this page would be protected from vandalism and that he would take actions to prevent wikipedia from being used as a platform for libel and posting of sealed court documents.

WALES POST 1: I did agree with Mr. Merkey to take down some vandalism which has been posted here about him, and temporarily protect the articles while we sort out what's going on.Some really vile stuff was posted about him in some of these articles by anonymous ip numbers -- he seemed to think that it was one of our admins, but I explained otherwise. What I can safely say is that Wikipedia should not libel anyone, and that our normal standards of good conduct are expected of everyone.--Jimbo Wales 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above has now been clarified to be a correct quotation of a post made by Jimbo Wales in this edit, in response to this edit by 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs).

Nomination Withdrawn Based upon the assurances of the Wiki Editors, and their prompt, diligent and COURTEOUS commentary on this page, and their acknowledgement of the Mr. Wales Views and directives. My nomination of this page for deletion is hereby withdrawn.

• Keep Jimbo Wales promises are most certainly going to be honored by these folks. Gadugi 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Merkey --fvw* 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because of what Gadugi wrote above, but simply because there is no assertion of Merkey's notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given by fvw. Merkey appears to be a public figure. His feeling that he might have to withdraw from wikipedia due to perceived conflict of interest is irrelevent.Brandon39 08:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the same old reasons. Vizjim 09:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per fvw. Also reading that Talk page made me feel stupider by several IQ points and I see no reason why others shouldn't share my pain. Possibly even speedy, there's enough bad faith flying around that article to fill several intelligent design committees. --Last Malthusian 10:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Jeff is certainly notable, and because empty threats are not a reason to delete anything. As for fear of vandalism, Wikipedia can deal with that as it can with all vandalism. Last but not least, the page can use some objective editing and citing of sources; I believe that the only source of the military awards so far is Mr. Merkey himself. --MJ 10:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I will scan and post my DD214 and Orders granting the awards from the Secretary of the Army. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see Jimbo Wales' assurances in his own words. Could someone post the actual text of his promises, or a pointer to them? Jimbo sometimes makes very carefully qualified statements, and people sometimes engage in wishful thinking when relating what he said in their own words. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As requested by me, the relevant text has been quoted above, in the paragraph, "WALES POST 1". The original posting appears in Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey which I ought to have checked myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just reviewed the changes since the page was unprotected and I don't see anything that looks to me like "vandalism" by the "SCOX lynch mob" or anything else. All I see is some wikification by User:Jonathunder, who is not a vandal, and the addition and then the removal of a ((vprotect)) tag by an anon, 67.177.35.211, followed by the insertion of an ((afd)) tag. Gadugi, what exactly is your complaint?

I can easily believe that Jimbo promised in a general that way the page would be protected from vandalism, but I find it unlikely that he promised that the content of any page would remain indefinitely under the control of any single individual. It is appropriate to ask the Wikipedian community to exercise special vigilance on a page, but not to ask that nobody ever be allowed to change it, or that all changes be preapproved by a single person. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep whilst vandalism is unfortunate it can usually be controlled, and is not a reason to delete stuff chowells
• Keep. Jeff Merkey has made himself a very notable individual in the SCO-Linux controversies by making an offer to buy a snapshot of the Linux kernel to be licensed under the BSD license. Such people often want to either have exclusive control over their article, so that it excludes anything they would rather people didn't know about them, or to delete it because they won't possess exclusive control over it. However, this is not a privilege we have ever extended to anyone; as for Mr. Merkey's claims that he received a personal promise from Jimbo Wales that he would be given such control, I quote from the Findings of Fact in Novell v. Timpanogos Research Group, Inc.: "... this statement is another example of Merkey's penchant for self-serving, separate reality, dishonesty ... While it is human nature for each of us to put our own spin on events which we observe ... Merkey nonetheless regularly exaggerates or lies in his comments to others about events happening around him. It is as though he is creating his own separate reality." Clearly the article should be kept, and yes, a careful eye should be kept on it to protect it from vandalism. However, the history shows that the vandalism it is most likely to experience is Mr. Merkey himself removing documented facts he finds unfavorable, either under his username Gadugi or under a number of anon IPs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If vandalism can be controlled, I have no objection to this page. As for quoting from a 9 year old ruling, anyone who believes that mouldy piece of fiction written by Novell's stooge judge speaks for itself. It reads like an astrology report. If you are going to quote from it, please also quote from the orders removing the judge from the case by the Utah State Legislature and the Judicial Conduct Commission. You are free to quote facts, just remember there are two sides to every story, and you should present NPOV which is to present both sides. Also be advised that some portions of these court documents are sealed. Gadugi 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protect yourself from falsehood This is a pearl indeed from the talk page of Antaeus Feldspar. It certainly applies here: I used to believe (and tell others that I believed) that "When your goal is to act in an ethical and moral manner, your first and foremost enemy is always yourself." I now know I was wrong. If you have the basic desire to act ethically in the first place, then you have to take second place in line to a whole lot of other people out there who can do a lot better of a job twisting your good intentions into bad deeds than you can. To be hoist by one's own petard is not necessarily the easiest or most common way to go, only the one with the most irony. Beware of approaching a problem by trying to find its identifying characteristics. What is truly needed, and what should be the goal of your search, is distinguishing characteristics. gadugi 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Anaeus and Gadugi/Jeff, let's keep this constructive and OT. What happens outside of WikiPedia should be kept out until it has bearing on an article itself. Jeff, you are also not helping your own case by making unsupported allegations about anyone criticising you, and besides, it has no bearing on this discussion. Just not stepping into such discussions would be even better. --MJ 18:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

If someone has been described by a federal judge in a Findings of Fact as having a tendency to create his own separate reality, I think it is perfectly on-topic to bring this up in the context of certain promises supposedly made to that person by Jimbo Wales -- for which we have only that person's word that said promises were ever made, and what their content was. Of course, I think Mr. Merkey's attempt to impersonate Jimbo Wales rather supersedes any documentation I could provide to indicate that his word is not exactly to be taken on faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being a uncharitable in your assertion that this was an attempted impersonation, the comment is part of a comment by Jimbo Wales from the articles talk page [1], he did also leave the date of 13 September in place from the original comment. What he failed to make clear was that he was partially quoting and who was doing the quoting. (The item is missing is the text is the opening sentence "Obviously that isn't what I said." in response to Gadugi's original characterisation of his discussion with Jimbo.) I do agree that it would be helpful if Gadugi logged in consistently rather than having multiple "accounts", and if he'd simply provided a link to the original discussion. As it stands though I'm not sure what help the comment is, it doesn't seem to promise any special treatment, just business as usual.

I have dismissed the Federal Lawsuit as of today (2:05CV521) [[2]] to help remove any impediments to my contributions to Wiki and other areas of the industry. At this point, I will be posting ALL of the documents to merkeylaw.com. This will paint the whole situation with the broadest brush strokes and allow folks the freedom to tell the WHOLE story, not just the distorted side of the facts protrayed by Novell. Gadugi 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is clear that Jimbo Wales did not promise that the page would be protected indefinitely. What he did was give his assurance to Gadugi that Wikipedia policy did not tolerate the sort of treatment he had received. I am putting Jeffrey Vernon Merkey on my watchlist, to help revert vandalism promptly, and I hope everyone else reading this will do likewise. Gadugi should not expect that the page will never be edited or that he will like every edit that is made, but is entitled to insist that everything said be factual and neutral. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lynch Mob has descended from the maw of hell itself. Gadugi 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Merkey is certainly notable. In fact, his frequent attempts to block WP from mentioning him in a way he fanatasizes as libelous is probably notable in itself, since it makes him a public figure (albeit of mockery). Just check out Groklaw to see how public Merkey is. It's funny for someone to try to AfD an article about themselves too, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, extraordinarily non-notable to be getting so many keep votes. Everyking 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are not very many AfD (or formerly VfD) topics that I am already pretty well familiar with prior to following the AfD to the page. Sometimes once I find out what the thing is, I vote keep, but in this case I was already aware of Merkey's noteriety before clicking on the link (actually, more so before than after... the page wasn't very good before; but I think I cleaned it up quite a bit, despite Merkey's own vandalism of the page about him). YMMV, and obviously, you'll know different thing in advance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please why are we trying to erase this that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 05:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Information is true and a accurate description of Merkey person and behviour. His actions and behaviour caused much commotion and problems, so it is inportant enough to have an article about him. 217.122.95.222 21:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (this IP address has made a small number of edits, all either here, on the Merkey article, or on Talk:Cherokee where Merkey has edited)[reply]
• keep But we need to add an article on the fact that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was single handedly responsible for the abomination known as Disco in the 70's. He also may have played a role in the invention of the Leisure suit, however this cannot be proven because he succesfully got the 'Disco vs Good Taste' court records sealed. User:66.15.214.167 (this IP address has made exactly two edits: one to Merkey page, and this non-serious comment)

• Keep, but scrub heavily. This article has a lot of folks point of view and the talk page shows some intellectual snobbery from some of the contributors. Just stick to the facts, they are interesting enough all on their own. This merkey turkey is quite a character, and very entertaining. CowboyLawyer 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet account)[reply]

Hey folks: While I also think this article should be kept, posting joking votes from semi-sockpuppet addresses is not in very good faith. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Even better: This is a Merkey sockpuppet evading his block. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 17:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Jeff is very important in the SCO Group related matters. --Jannex 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.