User talk:Bill Huffman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Why does he do it?

Well, now that he is on Wiki and editing Derek Smart this is sure to become another battleground if/when Smart and his followers get wind of it and show up.

Nobody knows for sure why he does it. But the fact is that Huffman has unarguably been harrassing and net stalking Derek Smart since as far back as 1996 on Usenet and online forums. There is on reported incident of Huffman instigating a minor named Louis (louisJM on Usenet) another Smart detractor who used to live near Smart's former home, to follow him around his neighborhood one day to find out where he actually lives. That incident ended up involving the cops and the court system after Smart filed for a restraining order. Shortly before he stopped his activities, the kid told authorities that Huffman had asked him to do it. Louis disppeared from Usenet shortly after.

Huffman is known all over the internet and many have written about his activities against Smart to the extent that whenever Smart shows up on a web forum, Huffman is sure to follow. He (and sometimes both of them) usually end up getting banned once the furor from Usent spills over. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Smart, why do you think that you are allowed to put lies, insults and falsehoods on my talk page? I have never edited Derek Smart. The flame war was never about me no matter how much you say that. I never stalked Mr. Smart. I was on Usenet well before Mr. Smart was. I participated in Mr.Smart's flame war because it was amusing and because I disagree with academic fraud. Mr. Smart claimed an accredited PhD. I proved that it was not an accredited PhD. Eventually Mr. Smart even admitted that it was an unaccredited PhD. Heck, he even admitted that his alma mater was listed in the diploma mill chapter of Dr. John Bear's guide. Out of revenge/frustration Mr. Smart would attack me with lies about netstalking, like he does above.
Regarding the Louis stuff and me following Mr. Smart around to forums and most everything else in SC's paragraphs above, it is the usual lies that Mr. Smart used to like to spew. I had nothing to do with that Louis incident that he linked to. Your link doesn't indicate that it does. Your link is to a discussion about an incident where Louis accuses Mr. Smart of following him around in his car one weekend, ostensibly so Mr. Smart could find out where Louis lived. You tell lies then link to nonsense as if it somehow proves your lies are true. This is a classical Derek Smart duplicitous technique. Your dishonesty is really mind boggling. Please go away, tell only the truth, do not continue your academic fraud, and I will be delighted to leave you to your troubles that you will undoubtably generate on your own. Bill Huffman

[edit] Not appropriate?

Why the hell not JBKramer? Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The two words that best describe you, Mr. Smart, is inappropriate and dishonest (as is exemplified by your academic fraud). Just go away and stop netstalking me.
It is fun to note that Mr. Smart has been posting on Wikipedia for a long time. (I know that Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk deny that they are Derek but his writing style is really easy to spot and it was shown that Derek Smart uses the same Bell South ISP in southern Florida.) On Usenet June 14, 2006, I referenced your old antics being replayed on WP. I read your nonsense but wasn't interested in playing with you and your academic fraud anymore, even though you wrote a purely attack piece on me here on WP before I ever showed up on WP. So this further debunks your lie that I netstalk you. I more recently became active here on WP in a couple other articles involving academic fraud and decided to correct a few of your more blatant lies about me that seemed to be impacting the discussion on Talk:Derek Smart. Then you start spreading attack notes on my user page and then my talk page. You know Mr. Smart, if you keep net stalking me, it will just make it more likely that I'll decide to rejoin your little flame war at least the one you have made over the Derek Smart article. Heck you might even make it interesting enough for me to update my website on werewolves dedicated to your flame war ways. I haven't updated that in over four years. Bill Huffman 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I did decide to update the Werewolves site since Supreme_Cmdr has continued to be so insistent. Bill Huffman 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Smart just can't leave you alone for even a moment, can he? -- Cronocke 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Derek Smart's personal attacks against me and others here on Wikipedia have been significantly reduced since his main surrogate account, user:Supreme_Cmdr, has been officially banned by ArbCom because of his personal attacks. Thank you, Bill Huffman 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ph.D. Reference Question

Thanks for your offer of help in tracking down an article for use in the article. It is my understand that, at this point, the claim is being made that Derek Smart never even used the abbreviation Ph.D to sign off. I cannot possibly claim to be as familiar as yourself with the subject, but I've been around long enough to remember him signing off on soapbox articles on his own website as such. Richard Kyanka spoofed it in parodies on his website. It was fairly common knowledge among the sort of people who follow video games and video gamers closely enough.

Suffice to say I am convinced that he asserted that he was a Ph.D. and that it was refuted because I read about it at the time. But at this point we would need to provide some "reliable" source that verifies this. Something that isn't a parody, or an archived newsgroup, or overtly critical of Smart and would actually care enough about him to note that this happened. No mean task. But I think perhaps some sort of press release or gaming article would suffice. Once we've established that it did happen, we can move forward on the details of what was said and when. I believe that with a neutral third party piece of evidence, the newsgroup citations would carry more weight because they are both confirming the same thing, but one is a Primary document, and its account would be more detailed and to the point.

Anyways before this turns into a manifesto, I'll search the web for some information and link it to the Derek Smart talk page if I find anything useful. If you would be kind enough to help, I would appreciate it, and I think the people who originally put so much effort into the rewrite would as well. It's part of the story, good or bad, and efforts to exclude it because of some lawyering minutiae are straight up lame.

Please feel free to respond with any ideas or suggestions or snide comments to my talk page. Thanks again. Mael-Num 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Okay, maybe not too difficult at all...
Authored by Smart, signed with a Ph.D. and linked to from the 3000AD site. Next perhaps we can find an account of the challenge to his Ph.D. claim and his response that is independent of your own site. Would you know where we could find one? Mael-Num 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly where I would have gone to look at those old interviews. I think what you linked to was probably a copy of the same story that was released with the free version of the first BC3K game. I can double check on that if you want me to. Anyway, it looks like the early interview links are all dead. I know that the PhD was mentioned in a few of the early interviews. Once the story of the academic fraud grew though, Mr. Smart stopped claiming a PhD in his interviews probably to try and avoid any unpleasant questions. Bill Huffman 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides those early interviews, flame war follies site, and Google are the only places I know of that the other stuff is available. I did a cursory check of the BC Story and they do appear to be identical to the story that was sent out with the free version and the same one that was placed at the end of the BC3K manual. Bill Huffman 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should ponder the case of Smart still signing as a Ph.D. Of course, while this looks like it could be him, I am not certain. Note the dates. I lol'd.
Anywhoo, I think Jeffness and I are forming up an argument to sway consensus (and maybe any moderators) in favor of the Usenet cites. The only assumption I think our argument relies on is, as with the Avault forum posts I just linked, that those Usenet posts are absolutely Derek Smart's. Again, I can think of no one better qualified to ask for help in verifying this. I think if we can show that they are Smart's in the talk pages, we've got a pretty solid case for the Ph.D section's inclusion. Any ideas? Mael-Num 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Usenet posts all have the news server ISP that was used to post the Usenet note. Those can be tracked to Mr. Smart's locale. Besides that, there are a few examples of Mr. Smart posting on Usenet and linking in his post to images or files in the BC3000ad web server that are on on that server apparently only for Usenet access. So those exact posts, of course, can be absolutely linked to Mr. Smart and then if the IP address matches between the posts we're interested in and the absolutely identified posts, it would make a very strong argument. I'll work on it tonight. Bill Huffman 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Western University

This is a very sensitive topic. Please see Wikipedia:Office Actions; you'll note that Pacific Western University is on the list of office-protected articles, one of just 7 among the 1.5 million articles in the English language Wikipedia. You may want to read the full article history and talk page, including the archive of older talk page remarks. --A. B. (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you A.B.. I fully appreciate the wise approach that it is better safe than sorry. However, the current state of the PWU article is misleading in my POV because not mentioning unaccredited implies accredited in the minds of most people. I think the article should be deleted altogether or perhaps leave it totally blank if that is required to keep it "protected". I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the legal situation is that the only degree that PWU can legally offer is in business administration. None of the other degrees have been approved by the BPPVE. Unfortunately the BPPVE has been "out to lunch" for a number of years and has not been able to do anything since closing down Columbia Pacific University. Bill Huffman 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy Western University: "Shown" vs "Implied"

Yes its good that you changed the term "diploma mill" to "substandard".

But whats up with using the term "shown" in that sentence? To use this term means that a definative conclusion was drawn.

Now we had this whole discussion and nobody is going to budge one way or another. You think the hearing was fair and the witness was credible. I think the whole thing was biased and did not prove anything. And I really have a problem believing that anyone can earn 40% of their credit in 16 hours (or whatever it was). I would love to talk to that person and find out how she did it, because I certainly have no idea.

So maybe, possibly can we do something to show a little neutrality here?

Peace Piercetp 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pierce, I suggest that you make a proposal on the KWU talk page. Perhaps the wording could be based on the wording prior to what it said before the obvious NPOV violation? I think it is better discussed on the KWU talk page because future editors might benefit from it. Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway addressing your point about how she did it. She studied the Table of Contents and Index then took the test. She had to take the first test twice before learning this technique. Perhaps the only two tests out of everything offered by KWU were the two that she took, if so it would be an amazing coincidence, but the life experience credits given to her was also a gross violation of academic rigor. The new policies put in place are significantly different from WNU. Doesn't that further prove that KWU was academically substandard? It seems an obvious truth to me that KWU was/is academically substandard. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would depend on whether of not the exam taken involves caluculations. I can tell you that the tests were all timed tests and consisted of anywhere from 20 to 40 questions. I would say that its not that easy.
Now about the article... well we will keep that discussion on the talk page.
Have a happy holiday season. Piercetp 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Fraud

You did bring up the subject of Academic fraud regarding unaccredited universities. I kind of have a pet peeve of my own that i would like to talk to you about.

You might be interested to know that there is a great deal of fraud concerning student athletes, particularly those on Football and Basketball teams.

I happen to know this because I have a friend who teaches History at University of Illinois. U of I has very strict admission standards for virtually all students. I myself could not be admitted as a Freshman in fact.

But this person I know actually taught a remedial course on social sciences to get students who do not have the necessary aptitute to learn at a University level. And guess what, all his students were athletes.

One rather funny story, there was this big ox of a man, a lineman for the Football team. And this guy got a 10 on his ACTs. I myself cannot imagine how anyone can score a 10. Even if you guess the answers I would say you can do better than than.

But in my opinion, I think that when you allow people in a competitive university based solely on their abilities to perform at a sport than you are being unfair to the other students.

Maybe we can both agree that this kind of academic fraud is something that shoudl be stopped. Piercetp 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pierce! Absolutely yes I agree with you. Another common activity done at RA schools that can easily lead to academic fraud is honorary doctorate titles. I'm not talking so much about the ones where they give a major celebrity/politician an honorary doctorate to give a graduation speech. The ones that are more often abused are the ones given for large financial contributions. Have fun, Bill Huffman 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I loved your ACT score of 10 story. I hope he was an extra good football player. :-)

BTW, I've been anxiously awaiting your proposed wording for the "shown" and what was shown/implied. Perhaps something based on the wording prior to the anon change? Regards, Bill Huffman 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer using "implied" but as long as the word "diploma mill" does not appear in the sentence than I am ok with it as it is. I decided to give the article a break and let someone else have a go at it. Taylor W seems to be keeping an eye on the article. As long as there are no overt acts of vandalism I am content to keep things as they are.
Shalom Piercetp 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, because I too think that it is better now. Take care, Bill Huffman 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I'm satisfied with the article and the weasle word "Implied" can be removed as long as the other one, "Diploma mill," is also excluded. The article looks balanced. Happy Hollidays.
Taylor W. 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we all like it better for the same reason. The term diploma mill is poorly defined and can mean a very wide range of things to different people. It is better to use more accurate language. Regards, Bill Huffman

[edit] Arbitration request on Derek Smart.

Check out WP:RFAR for the arbitration request on the article. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart and libel claims

The diffs I have put in there re: the libel claims are to support the claims made in Swatjester's initial statement. Indeed, I too feel that this is one piece of evidence which points to the man himself doing the editing. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current reading may not be clear what it is you are actually asserting by the evidence. Bill Huffman 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure how much information I'll be able to compile and with the 1000-word/100-diff recommended limit, I'm trying to be as concise as possible. I see your point, though. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a wiki tool to count words? Thanks, Bill Huffman 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. What I'll end up doing is just copy my section into TextPad or Microsoft Word and do the word count there. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for tip, I was not aware of the MS Word feature. Bill Huffman 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Supreme Cmdr" evidence

Regarding the point about "Supreme Cmdr" and it being what he uses in his own house, you may wish to link directly to a thread on the 3000AD BBS; this may save the arbitrators a bit of time when sifting through evidence. At random, I picked this one. You could link directly to his user profile, but this requires registration to view. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you, Bill Huffman 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing ... on your last addition to evidence, it's always better to put in a diff. In the piece about "Newyorkbrad", you probably should use this, instead of the link to that section. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent! thank you very much, Bill Huffman 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Should it be mentioned that Supreme_Cmdr continues to ignore his ban editing Derek Smart related pages or will that be obvious? (I already used up by 1000 words so won't mention it.)
If you like, bring it up over at WP:ANI. That is where the ban was proposed, discussed and finally decided, but the conversation has been archived. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You may get a quicker response by bringing it up on InShaneee's or Glen S's talk pages. InShaneee informed him about his ban and Glen S (previously uninvolved) blocked him later for violating it. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I was only concerned that ArbCom be made aware of the lack of respect. I think that Steel359 covered it in his contribution.[1] Thanks, Bill Huffman 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dsmart@pobox.com

I don't think it'd be kosher to add this myself but if space permits in the "Derek Smart (Game Developer) same person as Derek Smart (Usenet Poster/Flamer)" of your section of the Arb case evidence page, you might want to link to this article that appears to link Smart directly to the Dsmart@pobox.com e-mail address.

Best of luck on the Arbitration. I'm watching with interest. --ElKevbo 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am watching with interest. Thank you, Bill Huffman 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

Bill, I would advise against the jabs against SC/Smart on the Arbcom page. It can accomplish nothing except verify SC's claims that there a bunch of spiteful people out there to get him. Please, for the sake of the decision, keep your comments on the up and up. --Beaker342 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you Bill Huffman 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SC a "she"?

I've noticed that BBlackmoor repeatedly refers to Supreme_Cmdr as female. [2] [3] Does he know something that everyone else doesn't, or is it just clever subterfuge to draw people away from the "SC = Derek Smart" theory? Either way, I thought it was a little odd. SC's response to my question regarding the use of Usenet posts to character assassinate someone while trying to prevent their use in Wiki-articles was perplexing, as he (she?) did not seem to understand the hypocritical nature of such behavior. In particular, the phrase that those who hate him "can't deal with the fact that the man is a pure genius..." struck me as if SC, if not Smart, is a tad obsessed. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this development. Cardinal2 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded via email. thanks, Bill Huffman 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If I could hazard a guess, I think the use of the female pronoun may just be a habit of the author. BBlackmoor describes himself as an active RP Gamer, and it is fairly common for sourcebooks for paper and pen RPGs to use the female personal pronoun instead of the male. I think it's more likely to be a case of BBlackmoor's personal preference than his knowing Cmdr in person. Of course, I could be wrong. Mael-Num 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good advice

And excellent disclaimer on the Derek Smart ArbCom workshop page. I actually lol'd. =) Mael-Num 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] John Bear article

Mr. Huffman,

It is my opinion that you should show more concern towards the John Bear article by providing more information on the 'unaccredited distance-learning institutions' with which Mr. Bear has been associated, instead of accusing me of mean-spiritedness. As far as I am concerned, I have raised a valid point. If a major critic of unaccredited distance-learning institutions has been associated with them, it is quite possible that he or she is operating out of the same mean-spiritedness you seem so eager to accuse me of, or has some special axe to grind. Regardless of whether this happens to be the case, Wikipedia should make certain that a detailed explanation is offered in the article, instead of telling me which of Mr. Bear's books I can buy in order to find out, or in trusting the media and the F.B.I. to supply an objective account. If Mr. Bear is adhering to a double standard, he should be exposed. If there is a valid explanation for his association with those institutions, it should be stated in the article; otherwise, it invites questions concerning the integrity of the Bear article in particular, and Wikipedia articles in general.

I am thinking of pursuing an on-line degree, and have been attempting to obtain valid feedback concerning reputable institutions. Some acquaintances of mine have gone the on-line route, and have had mixed reactions from perspective employers, regardless of accreditation. If Mr. Bear's opinions are to be trusted, I would like to know so that I may benefit from them. If, on the other hand, he is just another snake-oil salesman with an avid following, I also have a right to know. Simply because you and user Thue happen to disagree with my approach, does not mean that I committed vandalism on the article, unless both of you have strong emotional opinions on the topic, and are unable to exhibit neutral points of view.

Thank you, Mklf

Hi Mklf, if you're interested in getting more information on distance learning options, I suggest that you the visit discussion forums on http://www.degreeinfo.com and/or http://www.degreediscussions.com.
Regarding Dr. Bear, he is a leading expert on distance learning as well as diploma mills. He has written the most useful books on the subject and he has testified in numerous trials as an expert witness. He is frequently sought after by journalists as a distance learning expert. He was a consultant to the FBI for their DipScam initiative. If you want accurate information then Dr. Bear is a good source. He is actually a strong supporter of valid unaccredited programs, at least for the right people in the right situations. Much more so than I am, for example. You may believe him or not. I really don't care.
I wish you luck. Perhaps we'll converse again on one of the above discussion forums. Bill Huffman 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you're interested, I'd be happy to discuss particulars about the John Bear article itself. If you're interested then please place those comments, questions, suggestions, or concerns in the proper context which would be talk:John_Bear. Thanks, Bill Huffman 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Derek Smart

I've removed the host info from your comment since I don't think it is needed (and administrators can tracert anyway). Also, I left a message at User talk:209.214.20.239; please take a look and tell me what you think. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That says it exactly. Sorry if I didn't do it properly. Thank you very much for fixing it. Bill Huffman 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you had the right idea, but a messsge at the person's talk page is much more effective (since they'll be alerted to it) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/User_talk%7EBill_Huffman_d903.html"