User talk:Talks to birds/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article

Currently at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waya_sahoni (project page) and at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Waya_sahoni (talk page) -- talks_to_birds 16:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ARBCOM for the details. Waya sahoni 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.

I am shocked, simply shocked, do you hear!

Must be quite a come-down for you from Utah District Court [1], eh, Jeff? -- talks_to_birds 07:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you really should add a comment to Jeff's rantings. As one of co-conspirators, I'm sure you could bring a lot to the discussion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waya sahoni and WP:RS vs. SCOX and Linux Community Editors --Jerry (Talk) 07:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- talks_to_birds 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:talks_to_birds

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:talks_to_birds

An important first point must be made as it establishes the context for most (if not all) of what is going on here.

Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey is User:Waya_sahoni.

In June of 2005, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey filed a civil lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Utah, Merkey vs Perrins et al, Case 2:05-CV-0521-DAK-SA. I was one of the named defendants in that case. In the course of researching and preparing my possible defense, I have become extremely familiar with the variety of issues that Merkey obsesses over, the way in which Merkey expresses himself, and the tactics Merkey uses when dealing with those people who attract his attention and who displease him. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and "Waya sahoni" are one and the same person. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia [23] as User:Gadugi.

The essential purpose of Merkey's lawsuit was to intimidate various individuals who had made note of Merkey's speech on the Linux Kernel Mail List, to compel those individuals into revising or deleting any references to himself that Merkey found unflattering, to generally prevent those individuals from exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment, and to serve as a warning to any others who might write about Merkey in a manner which he found unflattering that they would be added to the lawsuit by suddenly being designated as one of the "John Does 1-200" that Merkey held in reserve as a threat.

Turning to the issue at hand, it is ironic in the extreme (although not uncommon in close encounters with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) that "Waya sahoni" attempts to discredit unflattering references to himself (which he himself authored) on the Linux Kernel Mail List by characterising the LKML as "unverifiable content", all the while "Waya sahoni" posts libelous pejoratives on Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief) for which "Waya sahoni" offers no more corroboration than an alleged "book" for which there is no ISBN number; for which a Google search finds no reference to either the title or the author; and for which another Wikipedia editor User_talk:Aim_Here apparently searched the Library of Congress and found no mention whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#Disputed

As is typical for Merkey, a strategy or statement that he makes in one context can be completely denied, reversed or contradicted in another context, as suits his motives for each. If there is any consistency anywhere to what Merkey says, it is that anything he says will be denied or contradicted as the situation changes.

The LKML is a highly technical mail list which details the most specific points of Linux kernel development, both in terms of the C code itself, and limited discussions of Linux's philosophical evolution. One technical aspect of the LKML is that, for every post by every author http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/7/270, the LKML makes available the full, original email headers for reference http://lkml.org/lkml/headers/2004/10/7/270.

Merkey/sahoni's attempted assertion that the LKML "allows anonymous postings with forged email headers" is ludicrous and Merkey has offered no facts to substantiate his assertion. Even so, the posting history of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey shows a direct, one-to-one correlation between his posts, the computer host name of origin, the IP (Internet Protocol) address of origin (both as shown in the full email headers available for each post), and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's employment history.

There can be no question whatsoever that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey made the posts which bear his name. The only problem here is that Merkey now, and for at least the past year, has been engaged in a desparate attempt to revise history, to force the deletion of any references to his utterances that he can by threat of legal action, and to characterize those who see through his game-playing and who expose him for what he is as "Internet Stalkers, Intellectual Property Thieves, and Internet Libelers". http://www.johncollins.org/ml/2006-01/10-22:01/index.html

The verifiable posts which Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has made over the years to the LKML certainly do not paint Merkey in a flattering light. These posts are, however, highly significant as part of the historic record of the Linux kernel itself, and as an historic record of broader, important issues which have faced the Linux kernel and its development.

As much as Merkey wants to delete the historic record of his participation in the LKML, that record is meaningfull in any article about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey on Wikipedia as it represents his most publicly-visible face on the LKML, unflattering to him as it may be.

The current references to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's verified posts to the LKML are meaningful to any discussion of Merkey, should be retained in the context of the Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey article, and should not be deleted or moved to the LKML article itself. -- talks_to_birds 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)"

Additional statement by talks_to_birds

It needs to be pointed out that over and over and over again, we have the strongest circumstantial proof that "Waya sahoni" is Jeff Merkey -- a position that is held by virtually every single other person who is involved in any detail with the many issues surrounding "Waya sahoni".

What background or experiences does "Waya sahoni" possess that would cause him to categorize his critics here as "SCOX and Linux Editors"? What background or experiences could *anyone* possess that would cause them to categorize someone as "SCOX and Linux Editors"?

Why does "Waya sahoni" even use such bizarre phrases (with the not-so-subtle implication of some dark conspiracy) as "SCOX and Linux Editors"? What exactly *is* an "SCOX and Linux Editors"? Even if it (or they) are something beyond a shadow in "Waya sahoni's" paranoia, what is so bad about them?

His User:Waya_sahoni user page suggests absolutely no realtionship to computers, computing, Linux, SCOX, the LKML, etc etc, and yet "Waya sahoni" consistently obsesses over Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey like it was a life-and-death issue to him.

What *is* "Waya sahoni's" connection to Merkey?

I'll give you one guess.

Additionally, how is it that although "Waya sahoni" insists "This user lives in Texas" on his user page, those IP (Internet Protocol) addresses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.166.115.135 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.177.11.129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:67.177.35.222 -- check User Contributions for each) that can be *clearly* associated with "Waya sahoni" are homed in Utah?

Someone is lying, here.

Again, I'll give you one guess.

And again, that's classic Merkey. -- talks_to_birds 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your identity

No.. I don't really care, but I'm surprised that I didn't catch the clue at the head of this page. --Jerry (Talk) 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more WP:NPA

Thanks. Waya sahoni 07:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Drop the Charade

Yes. Let's not have any more WP:NPA. [2]

Of course, in your usual manner, you don't leave any suggestion as to what the hell it is you're talking about. Just a cryptic reference to a Wikipedia policy that you invoke when it suits your purposes, and ignore when it doesn't.

Let me make a Wild Assed Guess: you're complaining about the edits I made to User:67.166.115.135?

Let's drop the charade, Jeff.

I know you're Jeff Merkey, you know you're Jeff Merkey.

Henceforth I won't be playing any "Waya sahoni" games.

You (and this means in any reincarnation, for that's what a WP:SOCK is, right?) have been permanently blocked as User:Gadugi.

Any name that you use to directly evade this block is employing the technique of WP:SOCK. But of course, you only invoke those Wikipedia policies that serve your purposes, and you ignore those that don't.

Perhaps I should set up a WP:SOCK of myself, and we can see how quickly you start to whine about that. But of course it would be wrong for me to do it at the very same moment it is right for you. That's the way you work, isn't it?

Let me quote from WP:SOCK:

If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet used for policy violations, then it should be identified as such, by adding Template:SockpuppetProven to the user page of the sock puppet account. The syntax is (replacing instances of "SOCKPUPPETEER" with the name of the sock puppeteer and "EVIDENCE" with something such as "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SOCKPUPPETEER/Evidence"):
{{SockpuppetProven|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=EVIDENCE}}
Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:

the user's own admission;

matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;

a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

The above template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven.
Instead, add Template:Sockpuppet to the page:
{{Sockpuppet|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=[[EVIDENCE]]}}

So, Jeff, we are very much in the accusation stage and anything that anyone posts or edits or reverts that supports the goal of outing "Waya sahoni" as a sockpuppet of Jeffery Vernon Merkey is not a "personal attack", no matter how many times you try to say so.

Oh, yeah! How's the hunt for that ISBN number coming?

It's now certainly "later in the evening"...

-- talks_to_birds 16:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if you did this intentionally, but I thought I should point out that using the Sockpuppet templates on this page has added your account to the list of Sockpuppet accounts maintained by Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets. — MediaMangler 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-/ Nope! Ouch! I've <pre>'ed it out; hope that gets me off the list!

/* thinks to himself that maybe he should set up a sockpuppet account... */

/* ...decides against it */

-- talks_to_birds 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey's pending lawsuit on WMF

Do you have a phone number I can call to get an oral confirmation on whether or not his case is still pending against the Wikimedia Foundation? Thanks. --BWD^(talk) 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The best I can do is to log on to my account at PACER, bring up the case (which I've continued to follow since it was filed, even though I was dismissed) and try to decypher what's going on.

You might try posting to Yahoo! Finance SCOX with a subject "Ping Al P" and ask him what's going on. Al would certainly be your best source. -- talks_to_birds 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's odd that Mr. Merkey doesn't know which cases he has pending. --BWD^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's reality, there's Merkey's reality, and there's the portion of Merkey's reality that he's willing to acknowledge at any point in time...

The last two are subject to change, as needed :-/ -- talks_to_birds 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I read one of the case briefs at scofacts.org. It's very interesting and a little disturbing. --BWD^(talk) 19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. Particularly the Amended Complaint, dated 7/20/05.

Apart from its predominately hallucinatory tone, it's pretty astonishing in that someone can actually say all those kinds of things about other people in a very real document that carries some very real weight in the real world, and get *completely* away with it. Kinda takes away any faith I had in the legal system found in the United States.

Of course, Merkey is no slouch when it comes to saying outlandish things about other people. -- talks_to_birds 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. He said that Bruce Perens said that Merkey should be put on a list of people to be killed! Now that's a gem. If I remember correctly, he said Merkey should be put in people's killfile. The rest of that amended complaint is some of the most absurd crap I've ever read. What happened with that complaint? --BWD^(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff is an interesting and disturbing character. He can come across as completely reasonable one minute and completely bizarre the next. I've been following his antics from his peyote days on LKML, through his appearance and disappearance (multiple times) on the Yahoo SCOX board and finally Wikipedia. Mostly I've been under his radar, though he tried to itimidate me on the Yahoo board with an apparent Google search he had done on my name. No lawsuits, but being named in a Wikipedia arbitration, even as a minor character, means I'm getting under his skin. And I'm pleased to be able to do my small part. --Jerry (Talk) 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey v Perens as I recall it...

Various people and organizations were dropped slowly after allegedly coming to some sort of individual "agreements" with Merkey. In my case I posted a statement written by Merkey on my website, where it still is to this day.

Pretty much everybody was dropped by late summer. Al P and Pamela Jones/Groklaw were dismissed from the complaint in late September, with Merkey stating essentially that the issues had been carried over into:

criminal actions for alleged "criminal stalking" ("stalking" is a *very* big buzz-word with Merkey);
criminal complaints for the alleged distribution of copyrighted material (I believe this may refer to the Novell settlement (Novell, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Group, Inc., et al., 97-0400339, Utah County) wherein Merkey got handed his head on a pike);
alleged "stern action" that Yahoo! was taking against his tormentors there -- this "stern action" was nothing more than the banishment of Merkey's Yahoo! nym "Jeff_V_Merkey" and the wholesale deletion of every single one of his 275 posts from the date range of 7/8/2005 thru 9/19/2005;
and finally Merkey maintained that the straw-man issue of his submitting a document (inexplicably, a copy of the Novell settlement, above -- a document with no other purpose in the litigation except (IMO) to serve as bait for a trap: Merkey insisted that the Clerk of the Court screwed up and allowed the settlement to be posted on the Court website, whereupon Al P downloaded a copy -- and then suddenly after the fact Merkey insisted that all along the document should have been sealed) that was belatedly placed under seal was/is being distributed by Al P and assorted others was to be continued in an alleged "ongoing case".

Regarding 1) above, no one has ever seen or heard anything about any "criminal actions for alleged criminal stalking";

Regarding 2) above, no one has ever seen or heard anything about any "criminal complaints for the alleged distribution of copyrighted material";

Regarding 3) above, Merkey no longer exists on Y! SCOX although he attempted to come back as "skatole_lurker" (all 8 posts in the date range 10/24-10/25/2005 deleted) and as "microslutsucks" (6 posts in the date range 12/11-12/12/2005 still exist; a selected example with the entire thread expanded;

Regarding 4) above, the case sits with a pending "PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT RE: ALAN P. PETROFSKY / REQUEST TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE / MOTION TO AMMEND [sic] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES" in which Merkey demands:

court costs;
$2,000,000.00 for libel and defamation;
$20,000,000.00 (I'm *not* making this up! Go look!) for distribution of the Novell settlement which Jeffery Vernon (I'm my own attorney pro se and I'm getting what I paid for) Merkey screwed up deliberately and submitted in a manner which prevented it from being sealed;
various "permanent injunctions" against Al P regarding "posting materials on the public internet" or "stalking (there's that word again), harrassing or threatening" poor Merkey;
a Court order requiring removal of the Novell settlement from any, all and every website all around the world (jurisdiction be damned);
and finally, in the best Merkey style, a phrase that semantically seems to be asking that the Court perform the [removal] of "...any agents, employees, servants, or associates of Petrofsky including but not limited to Wikipedia.org, Wikipedia Foundation, scofacts.org, groklaw.com, groklaw.net, lwn.net, Yahoo SCOX, or any other websites or interactive message boards..."

(How exactly the hell the Court is going to do all that "removal", and where all these people and things are to be "removed" *to* escapes me. Go read it, maybe I'm missing something...)

And, finally, I think there's some sort of "MOTION for Default Judgment as to defendant(s) Alan P. Petrofsky MOTION to Amend/Correct [1] Complaint" but I have *no* idea what that's about...

Fun stuff, eh? Merkey's quite the package... -- talks_to_birds 01:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why settle? Well...

Why would you put a statement on your website if you did nothing wrong? I would have fought that net.kook the whole way. In any event, he's clearly a delusional lunatic. It baffles me how an individual can completely trash his own name and still live with dignity. It takes a true psychopath to do that. --BWD^(talk) 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a very good question. Personally, I found it to be extremely intimidating to be a named defendant in a civil suit in Federal Court.

This was Merkey's full intention: to threaten (he threatened me and my daughter in all manner of ways, particulary financially..) and intimdate those people who had the temerity to aggregate and post information about Merkey's past statements on the LKML, the peyote thing, the kernel buyout, etc etc..

It was bald-faced, blatant intimidation at its fullest.

To resist would have been extremely stressful and extremely expensive. I considered defending myself pro se, but Al P pretty much talked me out of that.

I accumulated massive amounts of data to support my defense (as a particular example, Merkey accused me of "google-bombing" Google to raise the ranking of the one, single and only web page I had about him. Exhaustive study of my web server logs proved beyond any doubt that if *anyone* was google-bombing Google for "Jeff Merkey" it was Merkey himself: every single time -- let me repeat that: *every* *single* *time* Merkey visited my web page -- sometimes a dozen times a day -- he came in from a Google search for "Jeff Merkey". Did he *ever* bookmark the page and come in that way? No: he always came from Google after a search for himself!) and I knew that I could blow him out of the water, but actually doing so would have been pretty grim.

And at that point (around July 25) I just wanted to be rid of him, and I was growing more and more disinterested with the entire SCOX/Groklaw tempest-in-a-teapot anyway, of which Merkey was only a distant side-show.

So he approached me about a settlement; I refused his first proposal completely; he advanced a second proposal and immediately re-worded that; and I decided I could live with it.

I pulled down the stuff I had up about him; put up his statement; he actually filed the dismissal; and I went underground on Y! SCOX and remained a considerable thorn in his side, which I have continued to be, right up to this day.

I've known a few ugly personalities in my life. Merkey is firmly at the top of the list.

Jeffery Vernon Merkey is Not A Very Nice Person® -- talks_to_birds 02:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had to go through that. If anyone threatened either me or my family members, there would be no more nonsense. I would be in Utah to meet the person over a cup of coffee to discuss it like men; no hiding behind the computer screen or hiding behind case briefs. But then again, I guess we do things a bit different down here in Georgia. ;). However, now that I know the litigious nature of the individual, I'm going to steer clear of any article here on wikipedia involving him. In fact, I have. I never edited his little biography here. I was just pursuing yet another disruptive sockpuppet. I guess that's how I got involved in this arbcom dispute, and I guess now I'm part of his massive conspiracy against him. Anyway, back to editing Georgia topics for me! I wish you and your family well. If you're ever down in Savannah, Georgia, send me an email and we'll talk over coffee. --BWD^(talk) 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"..now that I know the litigious nature of the individual, I'm going to steer clear of any article here on wikipedia involving him.."

Yup. That's pretty much how he works. Basically Jeffery Vernon Merkey is a bully.

What makes me laugh out loud is that when he's called on it [[3]] he never follows through. Vigilant 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! romanianconnection's got it in for Merkey, for sure. A *lot* of people do. He's made himself a pariah. His last few posts to the LKML http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/3/204 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/28/194 have gone unanswered, or have resulted in puzzlement http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/25/81. -- talks_to_birds 04:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]] made me snort coke out my nose. Vigilant 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, he's also without question his own worst enemy, and by suing so many people (prominent and not) and by having the whole thing blow up in his face the way it did (IOW anyone who was paying attention could see that it wasn't going to work) I really think he's pretty much shot his lawsuit wad.

Merkey will never file another lawsuit anywhere without the entire Internet knowing about it, in exhaustive detail, in a matter of minutes. He's unwittingly turned himself into the SCO Group of private litigation: he files, and what he files is ripped to shreds by the next dawn.

Of course, with our Wonderful Country® being the lawyer's (the pro se ones and the real ones) paradise that it is, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything :-/

So who knows: maybe it's time someone sues Merkey! -- talks_to_birds 03:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that tort reform is necessary. If we had reforms similar in nature to what they have in the UK, people like Mr. Merkey would go bankrupt filing all of these frivolous suits. Our system is quite backwards. --BWD^(talk) 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic Merkey"

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#Resolution_of_Copyvio_issues

At the risk of seeming to introduce tangents into the discussion, I would like to state that what we are witnessing here are classic Jeff Merkey/"Waya sahoni" tactics and behavior.

"I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content."

"Waya sahoni" was originally challenged to support WP:POV for the pejorative and libelous statements written about Joe Byrd. These statements appear to be supported by the inline links still found at this moment in the article itself. If one is to follow the links, one will find that the articles linked to do not support the pejorative language in the least.

Next "Waya sahoni" attempted to state that his source was a "book". He was challenged repeatedly by numerous editors to post the ISBN number so that the "book's" existence could be verified, and "Waya sahoni" failed to do so:

"I have to dig it out. I think its up at the office, so I'll run up there and get it. Please be patient, it might be later this evening when I post it. Waya sahoni 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)".

"Waya sahoni" never did post an ISBN number because there isn't any. But that doesn't stop him. He ignores the challenge, and proceeds ahead on a new tangent.

So, now "Waya sahoni" has taken matters into his own hands and posted scans of what may be at most a political broadsheet, complete with USPS bulk postal certificate in the upper right, and the clear statement "Excerpts from an upcoming book by Wm. R. Wayland with permission of the author" on the first page. "Permission" here clearly is in the context of the publication of the broadsheet, not for "Waya sahoni's" posting of any scans to Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, to "Waya sahoni" all this freely translates into "This document is also public domain, contains no copyright of the author (I know the author), and was released for public dissemination during the Cherokee Nation Elections."

In point of fact, the former "book" appears to be, again, nothing more than a political broadsheet of indeterminate validity.

The essential point here, which "Waya sahoni" has never even begun to approach, is that irregardless of whether some text exists in printed form on some paper, what factual corroboration is to be offered for the pejorative statements made against Joe Byrd?

But with "Waya sahoni", all he needs to do is unilaterally announce "I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content. The article posted here is done so to appease those wanting to verify it. Well, its verified. The images are released and public domain. The issue is closed." and that is the end of the matter.

This is classic Merkey/"Waya sahoni": he repeatedly fails to support his allegations or statements when challenged; he strikes out on his own; and when he's done, he announces that that is the end of the issue.

Fortunately, there are more than enough thoughtful and analytical editors on Wikipedia to realize that the issue is not closed. -- talks_to_birds 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "SCOX" fixation

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_a_Native_American_peoples_project_subject.3F

And MJ and his buddies from SCOX have been vandalizing our tags in that article. Waya sahoni 08:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your fixation with "SCOX"? Would you please explain exactly what this "SCOX" is?

Could it be that you, as Jeff Merkey, was banned from Yahoo! message boards generally after your relentless attacks, your homophobic insults, and your threats of litigation against any and all who had the nerve to expose or contradict your nonsense?

Please describe exactly what experience have you had with Y! SCOX that leads you to speak of it in such derogatory and pejorative terms, implying that somewhere, somehow, there is some deep, dark conspiracy happening at this mystical "SCOX" and that its target is you, you you... -- talks_to_birds 10:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address thoughts

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey#Challenge_for_Waha_sahoni_from_NA_wikiproject

"Actually, I'm only about 90% confident now that Waha sahoni actually is Jeff Merkey" -- no, "Waya sahoni" is Merkey. I've read too much of his drivel over the past year to be fooled. If there's anything that Merkey has not been able to do, it's change his various obsessions and his wording when he's under pressure.

Additionally, I've been giving some thought to the IP address issue. Aside from the fact that "Waya sahoni" is directly associated with a host name based in Utah (in c-67-166-115-135.hsd1.ut.comcast.net the "ut" is Utah) "Waya sahoni" is a Comcast High Speed Internet customer, as am I.

There is simply nothing but money to prevent anyone from having several cable subscriptions, several different cable modems (this is the device that must be unique and recognised by Comcast to obtain an IP address) and thus several different external IP addresses all available through one router or firewall in one's home.

It would be trivial for me to add an addition network interface (NIC) card to my firewall box, buy a second or third cable subscription from Comcast, buy a second or third cable modem, and thus be able to appear to "come" from several different IP addresses as the mood and/or the need suited me. Of course, every single one of those IP addresses would be clearly homed in my true state of residence.

Finally, I run Linux on my firewall box and use a program called "dhclient" to actually obtain a new IP address from Comcast when (rarely) I reboot my firewall. I am looking into the command line switches for dhclient, and it looks as though there are switches that actually let one request a specific (or different) IP address from Comcast. Whether or not Comcast would have that IP address available is another matter, but it would be trivial to write a perl script that would repeatedly request a different IP address from Comcast until a new one was successfully obtained. Thus it would be theoretically possible to request a new IP address on demand, and to request a specific IP address from a list. -- talks_to_birds 10:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:JoeByrd_Maritial_Law_1_blowup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JoeByrd_Maritial_Law_1_blowup.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, OrphanBot :-)

A crop out of JoeByrd1.jpg

I had intended to post the image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief) once I got image placement figured out, but now it seems *all* the scans are gone...

Hey. It's quite likely that such a small snippet from a book falls under fair use anyway. It's just several full page scans that will violate it. Just tag it as fair use. --BWD^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image history and usage now documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JoeByrd_Maritial_Law_1_blowup.jpg -- usage designated as Fair Use. -- talks_to_birds 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey#Leave_it_alone

I would love to agree with what you're saying, except (you saw an "except" coming, didn't you) that Merkey/sahoni has clearly realized that he can exploit all of the very laudible tenets of Wikipedia to his full advantage. All of the WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:NPOV stuff he will invoke directly or by implication against his detractors, all the while he does nothing of the sort himself, or does so only if and when it serves his purpose at the moment.

He persistently attacks people as being "SCOX Meat puppets"; he ascribes the worst of motives to those who dare to criticise him; he is *constantly* pushing his own personal point of view on anything he touches.

Here is the core issue with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey: he simply does not operate within the familiar constraints that all of us expect most people to work within in our daily lives. To say that he is disingenous and situational is to put it mildly, and to miss the real point entirely.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey simply does not see and boundaries around his speech or his behavior. He can simply do or say whatever the moment requires; completely contradict what he just said or did moments earlier without a thought; and hold or deny two entirely different positions simultaneously in two different contexts.

And finally, when he's backed into a corner, he simply withdraws from the current debate, goes silent, and moves his activity somewhere else.

To quote "Anthony W. Schofield, Judge" in Merkey's much reviled Novell, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Group, Inc., et al., 97-0400339, Utah County, at 131.

"131. While it is human nature for each of us to put our own spin on events which we observe -- indeed the heart of most auto accident cases is the different perceptions of eye-witnesses -- 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..."

"..his own separate reality.."

Yes. And not a reality that most of us are familiar with. -- talks_to_birds 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waya/Jeff privacy convo

TTB, I answered one point there, but after reading your screed, and agreeing with everything you said, I don't see how it supports the argument that Waya/Jeff should be obliged to provide the details that Vigilant is asking for. I certainly would not provide them, and would not ask anyone else to provide them. --Vryl 01:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that somebody needs to make Merkey put up, or shut up. He will continue to run his game as long as he can get away with it. Here at Wikipedia he will require *constant* watching unless he's just to be left alone to run his games, in which case $DEITY only knows how many pages will be pushed full of his vitriol and his hatred. Without some point whereby his game-playing is exposed for what it is, he simply will have no inducement to stop... -- talks_to_birds 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. But it is his bevahiour *here* that matters, and not really his identity in the real world. WP would prolly let Saddam post here if he behaved himself and was contributing to the wiki. But asking for his private information is actually akin to stalking, and not going to win friends and influence people. --Vryl 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm not really expressing myself clearly about the detailed "identity" issue. I think very strongly that the top-level admins at Wikipedia need to identify Merkey/sahoni for who he is, and make a decision as to whether they're going to let him milk the good graces of Wikipedia, or whether they're going to rid themselves of a real problem.

I could care less about his personal, meatspace information being posted here.

I dunno... maybe there's been an "accomodation" made at the top levels, and they're going to let Merkey play as long as he minds whatever it is that passes for... no, I can't bring myself to use the word "manners" :-/ -- talks_to_birds 01:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTB and Lulu make the point better than I can. Merkey will continue to be a belligerent bully until someone (admins) sets limits on him. Take a walk though waya sahoni's contributions [[10]] and look at the articles and you can see that *any* non trivial edits or disagreements over copyvio, nearly anything, sends him into wikipedia abuse mode wherein he calls any edit he doesn't agree with vandalism, claims he's the only valid authority based on race, education, whatever. This is not going to stop until someone from wikipedia sets firm limits. It will never stop. Vigilant 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree. But it doesn't give you or anyone the right to ask for his personal information. We are talking across each other. I agree with all your points about Jeff/Waya's behaviour. I know what he is like, and I have had private correspondence with him in the past. But his right to privacy is the same as yours or mine. --Vryl 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Yes. Thank you. -- talks_to_birds 02:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waya sahoni

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ESkog#User:Waya_sahoni_-_3RR_and_accusations_of_stalking_and_vandalism

User:Waya_sahoni - 3RR and accusations of stalking and vandalism

I have apparently been accused of unsubstantiated vandalism against some unamed pages by User:Waya_sahoni at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Waya_sahoni#3RR_heads-up.

I would like to offer you some background on the broad scope of the issue, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Talks_to_birds#You_are_named_in_an_ARBCOM_Proceeding_regarding_Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_Article

Further relevant discussion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#Resolution_of_Copyvio_issues, and particularly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#.22Classic_Merkey.22.

It is interesting to note that "Waya sahoni" responded to your statement about his repeated reverts with charges of "stalking" and "vandalism" agaist a number of people, but as yet he has not substantiated anything to any of these people, other than to say "I'm afraid you have to do your own research. My assessment of your conduct stands. Waya sahoni 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)" to everyone who has asked for specifics.

Of course, he did not respond to your point in any substantive way.

Thanks... -- talks_to_birds 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, I have had time to briefly glance at Waya's claims and have found no evidence of vandalism or anything of the sort. I don't intend to take any action against any party involved in the relevant disputes at this time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- talks_to_birds 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having lost yet another argument, Waya sahoni...

...archives the result to sweep it under the rug. -- talks_to_birds 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the court case cited relate to the article's subject?

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Chief)#How_does_the_court_case_cited_relate_to_the_article.27s_subject.3F

Aside from the emotionally-charged quotation:

Paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Verified Complaint and the Statement of Edwin Lewis Romero attached to the lead Complaint as Appendix “A”, Exhibit “K” alleged that Plaintiff on August 5, 1997 was taken into the Courthouse by Byrd security personnel and he “took a gun out, pointed the gun at the juvenile Plaintiff” and would “blow his f____ head off.” Juvenile Plaintiff then was taken by City of Tahlequah Police and detained at the city jail for several hours. These allegations are not refuted.

Law was clearly established in 1989 that threatening to use deadly force by holding a gun to the head of a 9-year old child and threatening to pull the trigger was objectively unreasonable given the alleged absence of any danger to the police. Eliot v. Thomas, 937 F.2d 338 (7th Cir. 1991). The Defendants are charged as operating in concert and part of a conspiracy. Defendants put Byrd and his security guards in control of the courthouse and on this particular occasion, the City of Tahlequah Police took the juvenile Plaintiff to jail and detained him for several hours. In summary, the law was well-established that the actions taken on August 5, 1997 were in clear violation of the juvenile plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

how exactly does the case "CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/DISMISSAL AS TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY" relate to Joe Byrd, as he is neither a plantiff nor a defendant to the consolidated actions:

LINDA-TURNBULL LEWIS, et. al.,) Plaintiffs,)

Case No. CIV-97-689-B Lead)

DIANE BARKER-HARROLD, et. al.,) Defendants.)

and

CHADWICK SMITH, et. al.,) Plaintiffs,)

Case No. CIV-97-690-B Member)

DIANE BARKER-HARROLD, et. al.,) Defendants.)

Joe Byrd is mentioned in passing in the complaint through the recitation of a series of "Uncontested Material Facts".

But Joe Byrd is not mentioned at all in "IV. CONCLUSION".

And, finally, what was the outcome of this entire transaction? Since Joe Byrd was neither a named defendant, nor a named plaintiff, what relevance does the cited case have to an article about Joe Byrd himself?

Do we have, yet again, a "source" which only peripherally involves the actual subject of the article? -- talks_to_birds 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to "clerk" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_by_clerk

Posted originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_by_clerk

It is interesting that Waya sahoni makes the statement here that "I have noticed complete cessation of some of the conduct as a result", yet, as recently as 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Waya sahoni had this to say after being reminded about the 3 revert guideline:

I will look into them. Several users are stalking me on this site. I would appreciate them being warned/blocked from doing so, then I don't have to revert their vandalism of my work on other pages continuously. If this continues to be disruptive, and the admins fail to assist me in this matter, I will simply cease contributing. Then WP can find another Native Cherokee Speaker and expert on Native American Culture to assist you. I appreciate your kind and thoughtful posting here and assistance in resolving some of this. Thanks. Waya sahoni 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Users are:

User:Vigilant - worst

User:Kebron - second worst

User:talks_to_birds - etc.

User:Vryl

User:MediaMangler - etc.

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - etc.

User:BWD

-- talks_to_birds 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial rebuttal of "Waya sahoni's" statement

Let me start out by saying that I completely reject the charade that "Waya sahoni" is anyone other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. That is an issue which remains to be addressed by Wikipedia.

That said:

if "Waya sahoni" actually follows through and adheres to his self-described "affirmation and based on joint stipulation [he] will immediately consider [him]self enjoined" legalistic mumbo-jumbo (acting as an attorney pro se, again, Jeff?), it would be the first time that Merkey actually kept an agreement he has made with anyone.
"Waya sahoni" himself is the sole individual who obsesses about "lurkers" and "stalkers" and "members of SCOX" and "Linux Editors" -- this pantheon of faceless attackers out to get "Waya sahoni" and poor Jeffrey Vernon Merkey -- in post after post here.

If anyone here has used that phrasing about themselves, it is only "Waya sahoni's" determined refusal to see that as the true humor, sarcasm, or parody of "Waya sahoni" himself that it is, combined with his desperate need to find some sort of evidence, somewhere, of this vast conspiracy against him, that lets "Waya sahoni" make such a patently silly charge.

"Waya sahoni" constantly harps about acts of alleged "vandalism" taking place on a page he himself (having no apparent knowledge of computers, computing, software authoring, Linux, the Linux Kernel Mail List, or the SCO Group vs IBM/Novell legal actions) does not have any perceivable experience, knowledge or authority to edit or modify. What exactly qualifies "Waya sahoni" to even go near this page in an editorial capacity?

The only possible connection between Merkey and "Waya sahoni" (aside from the fact that they are one-and-the-same person) is that they are both allegedly Native Americans. Exactly by whom, and exactly where, has it been established that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is truly a Native American? This is an important issue that Merkey has always refused to address.

Seemingly "Waya sahoni" is utterly unqualified to edit points relating to computers, software, Linux, the Linux Kernel Mail List, Novell, SCOX, etc. Unless, of course, "Waya sahoni" is Merkey. But then we have other problems, don't we?
In point of fact, all the alleged instances of "vandalism" on Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey have occured by the editors charged in this WT:RFAr who are reverting the deletions made by "Waya sahoni". And what exactly is "Waya sahoni" so intent on deleting? Why, any reference whatsoever to Jeffery Vernon Merkey's infamous posts to the Linux Kernel Mail List.

This in itself is quite the coincidence: how funny that "Waya sahoni" obsesses about deleting *exactly* the same body of information that Merkey himself was so intent on deleting before he was permanently blocked as User:Gadugi.

The LKML posts were the primary focus of Merkey's lawsuit "Merkey vs Perens et al" (in which I was a named defendant). Through that lawsuit Merkey attempted to threaten and intimidate into silence anyone who had aggregated and made available over the Internet Merkey's verified posts to the Linux Kernel Mail List, or who discussed either those posts, or Merkey himself, in any way. This lawsuit was little more than a blatant attempt to deny people their First Amendment right to free speech.
"Waya sahoni" attempts to imply that some sort of dark evidence exists somewhere through his vague allegation that "the article contains large sections discussion (sic) litigation with SCOX and Linux members".

Yet SCOX is mentioned only once in the entire article, and that only because Merkey himself added "John Does 1-200" to his lawsuit in an attempt to silence posters to the Yahoo! Finance message board SCOX, which remains to this day one of the best sources for original research and discussion of the SCO Group's ongoing legal saga.
The phrase "Linux members" is not found in the article at all. The word "Linux" is found, principally in the context of the Linux Kernel Mail List, to which Merkey is possibly the most notorious poster, and of which "Waya sahoni" and Merkey have been engaged in a relentless drive to delete any and all references for close to a year.

As you may sense at this point, I could go on in rebuttal certainly far longer than any of us would wish, and far longer than is at all necessary. "Waya sahoni's" pseudo-legalistic attempt to force reasonable editors to stay away from the article about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is a blatant continuation of Merkey's lawsuit, and intends to suppress information that Merkey may find personally embarassing, but which is valuable and pertinent in any discussion of Merkey as a notorious public figure. Finally, it represents Merkey's continuing, bald-faced attempt to stifle the free speech of those who choose to remember things which Merkey would rather forget.

Perhaps Merkey would do better to spend his time pondering how to control the character of his future utterances (something which "Waya sahoni" clearly has not yet learned to do) than to try to wipe the Internet clean of what he has already said. -- talks_to_birds 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JoeByrd Maritial Law 1 blowup.jpg

I've nominated the image for deletion after clearing up all of the image issues at the Joe Byrd article. Letting you know is just standard procedure, as we don't allow fair use images on user or user talk pages. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I still have a local copy if need arises... -- talks_to_birds 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]