Talk:Derek Smart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

CVG Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Low

This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

CVG To-do:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-21. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives Archive 1: May 2005-June 2006 Archive 2: June 2006-August 2006 Archive 3: More August 2006 Archive 4: August 2006-November 2006 Archive 5: November-December 2006

Notice of Arbitration Committee Decision

This article was the subject of a recent Arbitration Committee case and decision. The complete text of the decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart.

The Arbitration Committee imposed the following remedies:

Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts: For a period of six months, ending September 2, 2007, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.
- Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The Committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.
- Although the decision mentions certain editors identified as single-purpose accounts, identification of which accounts are SPAs at a given time is often a matter of administrator discretion.
Article cleanup: This article is urgently referred to the Wikipedia editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV.
BLP policy compliance: Any user may fully apply the principles and practices of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Derek Smart. This may include deletion of the article and its history as well as its talk pages and archives and the project pages and talk pages of this Arbitration proceeding. (Please consult with the Arbitration Committee Clerks before editing or deleting any arbitration pages). Newyorkbrad 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1 ArbCom Ruling
2 Reliable Sources
3 Werewolves as a external link
4 Soda Machine Incident
5 PhD
6 New consensus
7 Don't feed the trolls
8 Reported on WP:BLPN
9 A Possible Different Approach
10 Semi-protected
11 Back to business

ArbCom Ruling

It has been very interesting to me to watch this process unfold and come to its conclusion. Let me thank the ArbCom for their time and consideration, as well as the two clerks that assisted over the course of this arbitration. I hope that this will allow the article to actually be improved since Jeff's great rewrite. I also hope that it will significantly reduce the personal attacks that were seen on this talk page. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by a revert from one of the people responsible for this, I don't think the ruling did anything to alleviate the problem. All the did was say that everyone should adhere to the Wiki rules. We already knew that. Saying that people should adhere to the rules doesn't mean that they are going to. And they banned Supreme Commander and stated that surrogates shouldn't edit the article. Unless the page is protected for good, I don't think that anything will change. 209.214.20.239

Since your edit summary indicates knowledge of the ArbCom ruling and your edits appear to be similar to BlindMoose's edits below, I've requested a Check User be done to see if you are related. After that is done, regardless of the outcome, I intend to request that ~~both accounts~~ BlindMoose be blocked for violating the ArbCom ruling if someone else hasn't already beat me to it. --ElKevbo 15:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Kerr Avon has started with the same thing again. You cannot add Ben's comment because it has no basis in the article and does not meet with the guidelines for editing the biography of a living person. Please go back and read the ruling. I thought they were clearly stated. 209.214.20.239

I believe it is relevant to the article. Dr. Smart announces a release a year away and it gives an independent opinion by someone with some journalistic credentials in the industry on that announcment. It is very relevant and WP:RS. This has been discussed before and only apparent Derek Smart surrogates and Mael Num disagreed with it being in the article. Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive5#unecessary_reverts That can be considered a reasonable consensus being reached. Regards, Bill Huffman 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir 209.214.20.239, please be aware that WP:SPA accounts are not allowed to edit the Derek Smart article. This is a violation of the ArbCom ruling. Further editing of the Derek Smart article could lead to IP address blocks. You may voice your opinion here on the talk page but editing of the article by anon accounts or WP:SPA accounts is strictly forbidden. Thank you, Bill Huffman 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben Kuchera is a notable individual in the gaming community, he is described as Ars Technica's very own gaming guru [1], and as such is qualified to comment (quite correctly too if one might add), regarding Smart's intentions.Kerr avon 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it as the gaming guru at ars technica has commented regarding Smart's intention to develop for the console and Smart's track record and this is in accordance with BLP.Kerr avon 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am still unsure about the Werewolves link but the Ars Technica link seems to be clearly acceptable in the context in which it has been presented. --ElKevbo 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. It is not an article. It is a blog entry. Like website links, blogs are not considered [WP:RS]. Plus since this article is covered by [WP:BLP] any poorly source item should be removed. This comment by Ben is poorly sourced (i.e. he has no proof of his comments either) and is derogatory. As such, it has no place in the article. Y'all know that I'm sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.214.20.32 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Sir, please sign your entries on the talk page with four tilde characters, (~~~~) Regarding your comments, Ben gave what was obviously his opinion. Opinions are obviously sourced properly and automatically when they are the opinion of the person giving the opinion. Thank you, Bill Huffman 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Werewolves as a external link

I would value your opinions as to inclusion of the werewolves site as a external link. In the arbcom ruling there was no definite conclusion with regard to the werewolves site as a external link. So would adding the werewolves site as a external link violate the arbcom ruling? Kerr avon 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not conform to WP:RS nor WP:EL so it cannot be used. Plus it is a site dedicated to libeling a public figure whose article is covered under WP:BLP Wiki guidelines. Another reason it cannot be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.214.20.32 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

ArbCom does not rule on content disputes, so the werewolves site link can't violate the ruling. In my opinion, while the site itself isn't a reliable source (and therefore probably can't be linked from the article), it contains a lot of material that can be reliably sourced and should probably be included in summary in this article. Adam 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The werewolves site primarily documents the flame war. This general discussion is not whether or not the werewolves site is a Wikipedia reliable source. That discussion would depend on what it was intended to be a reference for. For example, for the statement "Dr. Smart participated in a flame war on Usenet for years." The werewolves site would probably be considered a reliable source. I thought that this general discussion is whether or not there should be an external link to the werewolves site from the article. I believe that is different and separate from the reliable source discussion. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the policy for external links and saw nothing that indicated that the external link couldn't be in the article. In particular I found the following section was probably most relevant to the discussion WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Regards, Bill Huffman 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps WP:EL. And the former has very stringent rules about what can and cannot be entered into a page that is a biography of a living person. Your website which is clearly an anti-Derek Smart site, regardless of your claiming that it merely documents the flame war, does not fall within the strict guidelines. Lets not even get into the lengthy flamewar between you and him. Obviously as a destractor of Smart, it is highly unlikely that you or anything that your site is about, can be entered into the article. Several people here have made this clear (please read the archives again if you need to refresh your memory on this). And the ArbCom was also clear about the editing of such articles and that in this case rules must be adhered to. No sir, your website cannot be added to the article under any circumstance as it would be against Wiki policy. 209.214.23.22 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor whose only edit is to this Talk page about this particular topic made with great familiarity with both the topic AND the ArbCom case...makes one wonder, eh? --ElKevbo 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So, let me see if I get this straight. I can't edit an article I'm interested in because the denizens who seem to have laid claim to it are suspicious of anon editors? This is a talk page. I am only pointing out Wiki policy which some of you seem to want to conveniently ignore. If Wiki didn't want anons on the service, everyone would have been required to register. Me posting anon am no different than you, since you are anon too except that you are registered. I choose not to register. Whats wrong with that? 209.214.19.53

It's just fascinating how many editors of this page connect out of Florida via Bellsouth IPs. A more suspicious person would just assume that they're all the same person, which would mean that a Arbcom-sanctioned editor was evading his ban. - Ehheh 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:209.214.23.22, please point out the specific rule/policy you're referring that trumps WP:EL. Also please point out the ArbCom ruling you're referring to that you believe applies to this question. I also point out that no one that I know of has ever proposed adding the werewolves website material to the Derek Smart article. I believe that what is being discussed is adding an external link. An External link is totally different from adding the material at the website to an article. Although I do thank you for your opinion and I'm looking forward to you providing references to the specific policies/rules/findings that you have referred to. Thanks, Bill Huffman 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out many many times already (still in the archives). You are well aware of this but it looks like you keep bringing up the same thing over and over thinking that its somehow going to be magically ignored so that you can spread your propaganda against this person in this article.

If you read WP:BLP it is obvious that WP:EL points to an unreliable source. Linking to such a source is the same as quoting the source. Wiki policy is very clear on this. Please read Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and WP:BLP Reliable sources. I shall quote one section from that second link

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we? I hope that helps.

Please try to understand that Wiki is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not a hate, gossip or rumor mongering site. Your website does not meet the standards for WP:EL because this article is protected by WP:BLP. Your website does not meet the standards for WP:RL because nothing there is factual or credible when taking the Wiki guidelines into consideration. Wike does not care if you or Derek Smart are right or wrong. All it cares about is if the material is credible and/or reliable. Finally, the history of your fued with Derek Smart in itself means that nothing you have to say or write, can be considered to be credible because you have an axe to grind and this is already a well known fact.

209.214.19.53

I believe that you keep confusing WP:RL with WP:RS and WP:RS with WP:EL. WP:EL is different from WP:RS and WP:BLP. You have referenced a paragraph talking about referencing material in the article and what a WP:RS is. WP:EL is a different thing. For example, look at John Gray (U.S. author). It references a WP:EL that is very similar and analogous to the the Werewolves site.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/

Regards, Bill Huffman 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Soda Machine Incident

Two things about the soda machine incident referenced in section Derek_Smart#Battlecruiser_3000AD:

The alleged attack on the soda machine occurred prior to the release of the game, not after as improperly stated in the article. I seriously doubt if Dr. Smart ever even returned to the Take-Two office after the release. In any case, that alleged incident happened BEFORE the game release. Someone needs to fix this inaccuracy, please.
I agree that the soda machine incident is part of the Derek Smart public persona/legend/myth. However, because of question as to the accuracy of the incident, I think it may be better to leave out the reference to it entirely. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst hardly a Derek follower, this wiki is the only place I have come accross references to this incident. Given both references are to say it didn't happen, I concur with Bill that it would be better to be removed outright.Catwhoorg 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the mention of this incident; although it's widely alleged, I haven't been able to find any instances of a firsthand report. Venicemenace 11:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any firsthand report, let alone a firsthand report in a reliable source. Dr. Smart is famous for his temper. I believe this is the main reason that this alleged incident is so wide spread. I think that the rest of the article does a sufficient job of painting a picture of Dr. Smart's famed temper. Bill Huffman 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of comment that the ArbCom ruled could be removed immediately from both the article and the talk pages of an article that is WP:BLP compliant. Yet, nobody seems to want to do that. Where do you have any proof, let alone WP:RS evidence that Dr. Smart is famous for his temper? And how did you come to the conclusion that the the rest of the article does a sufficient job of painting a picture of Dr. Smart's famed temper? Did the article or the author tell you that? Thats a libel lawsuit waiting to happen. Don't you ever quit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.214.20.32 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

209.214.20.32, please sign your comments using 4 tildes.~~~~ Also please dial down the inflammatory language. See the top of this page, this is article is a source of heated debates, and each and every editor has a responsibility to discuss calmly.Catwhoorg 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things , first of all it is Smart himself who claims that he post's to "create trouble", and to "piss people off". Isnt that a example of a person wit a temper problem. Secondly his so called doctorate is hevaily disputed Smart himself has claimed it from a non accredited degree mill, therefore it is not valid although you call him Doctor. He has never shown his certificate, never even discussed the subject for which he got his Ph.D, even when repeated request's have been made.Kerr avon 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Um I wouldn't personally call such a person someone with temper problems. He may have temper problems & posting to create trouble and piss people off may be a sign of that but it could very well be the sign he's just a bit of an idiot who finds it fun or whatever Nil Einne 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The soda machine incident seems to be one of those stories that everyone insists happened but nobody actually saw. I've seen it mentioned in passing in a couple of times [2], but this isn't even close to a reliable source. I don't see why this should be mentioned unless some can verify it. Adam 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The hurdle for sourcing statements to reliable sources is not to prove or disprove that the event actually happened, but rather that a controversy exists over whether or not it happened and whether or not the controversy is relevant for the purposes of the encyclopedia article. Policy is clear on this. You don't need to prove that Senator X had an affair as long as it was reported in a reliable source that he has been accused of having an affair. That said, I have no strong desire to have the soda machine incident included in the article, but I think this is more an editorial issue than a RS issue. --Beaker342 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your interpretation of WP:ATT and WP:BLP but I think we've come to the right decision about this particular alleged incident. In the case of biographies of living persons, we err on the side of giving the person the benefit of the doubt when a source is not particularly strong, especially when the allegations are potentially negative. --ElKevbo 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure his/her intepretation of policy is in fact (partially) correct. For BLPs, we need to establish that a controversy exists. Just because a user has done something stupid doesn't mean a controversy exists. If no controversy exists, then there is usually no need to mention something stupid that someone did. For reference, you might want to check out cases like Ann Coulter. If a controversy exists but is discredited or has never been proven, things are a little less clear cut. If the controversy is particularly noteable, we should probably mention it but mention that it is discredit or unproven as the case may be. Edit: Actually on second thoughts, it's probably better to say an incident needs to be noteable to mention it, and controversial for us to present it as a controversy. In other words, just because someone has done something stupid, doesn't mean it's worth mentioning and if we are going to mention it, we need to be careful that we present it neutrally Nil Einne 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PhD

I have tagged the inclusion of PhD in Smart's name.

"Include citations to reliable sources when you add content, especially regarding contentious issues and biographical material about living people."

SheffieldSteel 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a reference should be added to Dr. Smart's claim to a PhD. A good reliable source was referenced in the last archive of this talk page. If someone wants me to, I will be happy to track it down for another editor. Some editors may not be aware, I will not edit the article myself. Sorry, Bill Huffman 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Derek Smart claims a Ph.D. in Computer Science. It seems awkward to me to mention the Ph.D. in the article without also mentioning that Derek has chosen to keep his alma mater secret because the first thing a reader expects in a biography if an academic credential is mentioned is what college/university bestowed the degree. So a source for the fact that Dr. Smart has chosen to keep his alma mater secret might be a number of his Usenet posts where he states that he won't reveal his alma mater. An alternative might be for it to be mentioned instead in the article that it is unknown what school the degree is from without referencing any source or perhaps not mention anything about the school and let the reader wonder. Or the article could be returned to its previous state with no mention of Dr. Smart's academic degrees which in my mind would be very reasonable for Bachelor's or Master's degrees but I assume that doctorate degrees are usually mentioned in biographies when the person has one. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather awkward isn't it? If this were a biography with an infopanel, we could simply enter "withheld" in the appropriate space, but I don't know what to do in this case. SheffieldSteel 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that all communiques [3] by Smart including his offical biography [4], have the Ph.D tagged to them by Smart himself of course, regardless of the genuiness of it some mention should be made in the biography, like "All Official communiques are signed as "Derek K. Smart Ph.D".Kerr avon 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out. It would be irresponsible to mention the Ph.D at all without getting into the accredited/unaccredited debate, and the sources for that aren't so good. - Ehheh 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the accredited/unaccredited debate can be easily side stepped. Since the name of his alma mater is secret the accredited/unaccredited nature of the institution can reasonably be considerd secondary and avoided. I guess what I'm saying is that the choice from my above paragraph that I think might be the best way to handle it is to mention the Ph.D. perhaps in an "Academic Credential Controversy" section and simply state that there has been an online controversy because Dr. Smart has chosen not to divulge the name of his alma mater. There's a number of reasons that I think this might be the best approach. It avoids the messy lack of good reliable sources regarding the academic credential debate that Ehheh mentions. It acknowledges that there is such a debate which is good because the debate itself is very widely recognized and I believe deserves some mention in the article. It paints the debate in a manner that I believe is in the best possible light from the point of view of Dr. Smart while still respecting the reality of the situation. What do you think? Regards, Bill Huffman 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that when we say that there is a online controversy regarding his ph.D what are we going to use as the source, as the main source is the USENET. There is no doubt that the Ph.D controversy was a main controversy of the flame war and also that Smart most probably obtained it (if it exists) from a degree mill. Smart himself signed his usenet posting as "Ph.D non acredited" at one timeKerr avon 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct. You can't cite something in a WP:BLP article without pointing to a WP:RS source backing it up. Thus far, no such source which even points to such a controversy exists. And only arguments between anons on Usenet and in forums are available. I just read his bio PDF which (as you pointed out) has his middle initial and his Ph.D. credential. The fact that he uses it, means that he either has one or believes that he does. While I have no opinion either way, my money is not on the latter, especially given this person's exposure. It is not the place of Wiki or it's editors to debate the authenticity (or lackof) of his Ph.D. With so much already written about the man and in so many WP:RL sources, one would think that if his degree were in question, that something would have been written about it already. 209.214.19.53 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the bulk of evidnce is that Derek Smart does not have a Ph.D or one from a Degree mill whic does not count as a genuine Ph.D. The reason that this controversy was not handled is as Smart has not Divulged the name of the college which granted his Ph.D it is not possible to verify the genuineness of his claim. Smart's lack of openness shows a lack of respect for academic traditions. A Ph.D is obtained for contributing significantly for humanitys betterment, I fail to see how Smart has contributed in such away.Kerr avon 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

inflammatory and potentially libelous comments removed Please read WP:BLP in the Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material section which states thus:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.208.60.248.101

It is true that a requirement for a Ph.D. is the significant contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind. One cannot contribute significantly to the academic knowledge of mankind without having published anything. There are many reliable sources for these simple facts. The only evidence supporting the Ph.D. is Dr. Smart's unsupported claims. The problem I see in this is that there is not a reliable source that I know of that makes the statement that Dr. Smart has not published a dissertation. There are many statements by Dr. Smart that his dissertation has never been published but I believe those are only on Usenet. Bill Huffman 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While you do make some valid points, your assertion that having something publicy published is the requirement for a Ph.D. is false. There are many, many, degree holders who don't have anything published. Plus, we're not talking about some unknown person who just upped and gave himself a Ph.D. This guy is a notable public figure who has several published works (games) going back many, many years. Hell, even Bill Gates, a college dropout, only just got a honorary degree from Havard. There are lots of others who have honorary degrees and without any published works which could even meet the guidelines for having a Ph.D.

I don't want to get involved in this spat, but since your friends (the other editors) don't seem to want to touch (instead they're busy trying to guess who an anon poster is, rather than working toward writing a good article) this subject, between you and this other editor (Kerr), you obviously have an ax to grind with this guy and don't want to see anything neutral or good written about him. Thats not what Wiki is about sir. 208.60.252.98

Actually, by siging himself Ph D (as in his official bio linked in the article), and not having a published thesis, it could be said that Mr Smart has indeed just 'upped and given himself a Ph. D'. Whilst Ph. D are occasionally awarded without a published thesis, these are rare ( and usually related to military research), but the person in question should still be listed in the relevant graduation list of thier University.Catwhoorg 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Plus that is an inflammatory remark based on conjecture and in violation of WP:BLP. Just because you can't find proof, does not mean that it does not exist. Whether he got it from an accredited or non-accredited instution, a cereal box, a diploma mill etc is all irrelevant. Until there is proof of any of those claims, you can't assume anything. I could cite numerous common sense examples for you, but I doubt that any of them would change your mind. e.g. the inability to prove that a God exists, does not take away someone's rights to believe in his/her existence. That one went all the way to the Supreme Court btw. Also, I don't recall anywhere where he said that he was awared a Ph.D. without a thesis. Again, your comments (and most every comment here) is based on conjecture and hearsay. None of which are allowed under WP:BLP and WP:RL. 209.214.20.15

True they are rare. They are awarded based on significant contributions of already published articles. Plus Dr. Smart claims that he did a dissertation and it was suppressed because of his game copyright which makes no sense. Lastly, Steve Levicoff, an expert on academic fraud with a Wikipedia article of his own, has spoken on this issue.

Which brings us to the simple theory, a three-point example of an old algabraic concept:

1. If anyone refuses to reveal the source of his or her doctorate, that person is a fraud.

2. Derek Smart consistently refuses to reveal the source of his doctorate.

3. inflammatory and WP:BLP violating comment removed. Don't do that please. 209.214.20.15

Steve Levicoff Regards, Bill Huffman 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your theory is flawed. And there is no WP:RL or any source which shows that Derek Smart refuses to reveal the source of his doctorate. Just because he didn't post it on Usenet, forums etc. doesn't prove anything. Plus once again, yours is an inflammatory remark based on conjecture and in violation of WP:BLP. Comment removed. 209.214.20.15

Hi again anon, I am not trying to be inflammatory. I'm responding to your assertion that Dr. Smart's claimed credentials should be added to the article. Dr. Levicoff continues,

He may, indeed, be everything he claims to be - except a legitimate user of the title "Ph.D." And that, in my book, is enough to make him - or anyone else who engages in the same practice - a fraud. Moreover, he has continued to compound that fraud by continuing to use the title *and* continuing to refuse to reveal the source of his doctorate.

Steve Levicoff Regarding the your assertion that there is no source for Dr. Smart ever refusing to name his alma mater, There are probably 100's of times that he siad this. Here is documented the twelve different reasons he's given why he can't reveal the source of his academic title. http://suburbia.werewolves.org/~follies/PhDFraud/index4.html#reasonsSecret I think that the consensus for the non-anon's is unfortunately correct. Regards,Bill Huffman 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

inflammatory and potentially libelous comments removed Please read WP:BLP in the Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material section which states thus:

Bill, your pattern of behaviour mimics your Usenet pattern of behavior. We can't have it here. When posting, please adhere to the rules of WP:BLP which need no interpretation. You cannot post any defamatory or poorly sourced (e.g. links to Usenet, blogs etc) material in the article nor the talk page. I find it all too strange that I seem to be the only one pointing out these gross violations. Which goes back to what other editors have said, in that all of you are on an agenda which is clearly nowhere near the npov requirements of Wiki editing.208.60.248.101

Anon, I have posted a relevant quote from a recognized expert giving his opinion on exactly what you have proposed. That is, you have proposed that we accept Dr. Smart's doctorate and totally ignore the fact that he refuses to divulge the source. Dr. Levicoff states that refusing to divulge the source is and of itself proof of academic fraud. Wikipedia should not be used to further someone else's academic fraud. This is all totally within the rules of WP:BLP. Please stop deleting arguments simply because you disagree with them and then claim that you are deleting them because of WP:BLP. Although I do appreciate and encourage you to continue sharing your opinion. On a slightly different topic, I suggest that you get an account but in any case you must sign your posts here with four tildes, ~~~~. The four tildes are required because that also places the time/date along with your handle or IP address. Thank you, Bill Huffman 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out, per Metamagician. I can't produce any quick examples of other articles of individuals with PhDs that include the title in the opening paragraph. The Manual of Style says that titles should be avoided and instead there should be verifiable sections on how the individual gained the title. From WP:MOSBIO, "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." However, the MOS is ambiguous on postnomial initials, but given the sourcing problems, I'm inclined to leave it out for now. --Beaker342 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Beaker342. The PhD shouldn't be referenced in the lead per precedent (and MofS). It shouldn't be mentioned in the body of the article if it is unverifiable. The "online controversy" shouldn't be mentioned unless it is discussed in a verifiable and reliable source. In other words, at present I don't think Mr. Smart's PhD (real or not, from an accredited institution or a diploma mill, whatever the case may be) should be mentioned in the article. Venicemenace 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus seems to be...

Don't mention PhD at the top of the article at all
Only mention PhD later on if reliable sources can be found (one way or the other)

Does that sum up everyone's opinions? SheffieldSteel 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way to me. Catwhoorg 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution. Cardinal2 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you folks can't find a WP:RL source for his Ph.D. does not mean anything. His bio indicates that he does in fact have one. His credentials have been mentioned in many sources, both WP:RL and not. If the Wiki guideline states that his credentials can and should be added to his name, thats what needs to be done. Wiki is an encyclopedia and is not engaged in lawyering. Until irrefutable WP:RL evidence surfaces that he does not in fact possess a Ph.D. he, like everyone, should be given the benefit of the doubt. Lets face, the words or opinions of those with an ax to grind should be disregarded. 208.60.252.98 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else confused by the appeals to the guildelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league????? SheffieldSteel 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are clearly typos. I am refering to WP:RS and you should know that. 209.214.21.136 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If his credentials can't be sourced they're not going in. As our friend Cmdr liked to say, 'Fails WP:RS' - Ehheh 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Please read the WP:RL guidelines again. Does anyone actually CARE about Wiki rules anymore? He states that he has a Doctorate. His bio states thus. He, in various WP:RL sources have essentially acknowledged and status thus. As such, it stands to reason that if it fits within the Wiki guidelines, that it be mentioned and included. Further, common sense would dictate with his lengthy video game history and with partners who are no small fry, someone must know about it. If it were fraudulent, it is highly unlikely that any would do business with him. Out here in the real world, people with padded resumes, fake degrees etc get fired once they are found out. 209.214.20.15

Once again, where are these reliable sources? If you have found one, why don't you provide a link to it? Otherwise, your case holds no water. If you scroll up to the previous section of this talk page, about two weeks ago you argued for the removal of the "Soda Machine Incident" - which I agree with you on, by the way - as there are no reliable sources for this incident. Arguing for the inclusion that Smart has a PhD, without any evidence supporting it, runs completely contrary to your statements regarding the other incident. You can't have it both ways. Cardinal2 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out two. One of them being his bio. 208.60.248.101

Again, where are the reliable sources? As in plural. I've read through this talk page and I only see you mentioning his bio; you haven't pointed out another source. The only evidence his bio provides towards his having a PhD are the three letters themselves; no institution, no year, not even a major. In addition, his bio could easily be construed as violating WP:ATT on several levels. One could classify it as a questionable source that's primarily promotional in nature. One could definitely classify it as a self published source, which would not be acceptable as it is unduly self-serving. If you want to argue that last point, read through the bio. If lines such as "a prominent industry player and regarded as one of the quintessential indie developers." don't fit the definition of self-serving, I don't know what else would. Cardinal2 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, WP:ATT states that self-published sources may only be used in articles about themselves if the article is not primarily based on such sources. This means, without a doubt, that his bio alone cannot be considered a reliable source for his having a PhD. As I stated a few days ago, if I simply added "PhD" to my resume, without any other info, does that mean that I have one? Absolutely not. Such is the case with Mr. Smart, and until you provide a reliable source, I don't plan to change my opinion. Cardinal2 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, the fact that we can't find a reliable source for his doctorate does mean something. It means a great deal. Until someone can find such a source, there's no point in adding those three letters - unless you want a "citation needed" tag next to his title. I imagine most of the people here would be thrilled to see that outcome. You've been gung-ho about not including the Werewolves site because you claim it violates a similar Wiki-policy; your attitude on this subject borders on hypocrisy. Secondly, if his PhD has been mentioned in many reliable sources, as you state, then why not give us the link to such a source? From what I've gathered from others here, many have tried and failed over the years. To provide such a link would be extremely helpful. Third, his bio, by itself, is not an effective source. If I wrote in my resume that I had a PhD, is that definitive proof that I had one? I admit that a bio, along with a reliable source, would be helpful, but a bio alone doesn't meet WP:RS. Finally, I have taken a look at several Wikibios of doctorates; some famous, and some not quite as much. In all cases, the institution, major, and graduation year are given. While not Wiki-policy, I would expect no less to be required for Mr. Smart's page. I hope the weather in Florida will be nice this weekend. Cardinal2 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It means nothing. Plus, absense of the truth is not a defense against libel.209.214.20.15

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you please explain it. Thanks, Bill Huffman 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could respond to my comment with a bit more effort. I spent a little time going through Wiki-policy and bios to come up with my arguments. Replying with a glib remark isn't going to help you advance your issue here. Cardinal2 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do, but you folks obviously can't be bothered to read them. To you I pose this question. You're concerned about me not putting effort into my responses? Please tell me why you folks are allowing editors to go against Wiki guidelines by posting in the article and the talk pages, when what they're posting is clearly against WP:BLP?208.60.248.101

First off, I do read through your comments. I think other editors do as well. It's not that people don't read through them, but how your comments are constructed. Being ordered "Go read this Wiki-policy" repeatedly, without any deeper explanation, is not conducive to a productive debate. As seen by Beaker's comment below, most editors quote specific elements within Wiki-policies. You seem to be getting better at this, although I disagree with your methods of blanking the comments of other editors to do so. Cardinal2 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Wiki policies I point to are clear and self-explantory. So there is no need for me to regurgitate it. So please, give me a reason why neither you nor the other (serious) editors have objected to the inclusion of unsourced and pooly sourced material which clearly violate WP:BLP? Why am I the only person making these objections which are in fact in line with Wiki policy? I know wh. Bias and the fact that I don't believe that any of you here want to see a well balanced article. People here have latched onto this article in the very same manner that the Usenet did as well as all the archived talk pages. When people get too attached to something, they tend to be blinded by their own desires, actions and intent, rather than the rules and regulations. 209.214.20.172 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Now to your question regarding Wiki-guidelines. I assume you're referring to four incidents, and I'll go through my opinions one-by-one:

The "Soda Machine Incident": As I've stated before, I don't think it has a place in the article. I'm happy the way it is now, so I'm not "allowing editors" to do anything.

You can't take credit for that. Frankly it should never have been in the article. This was stated many times over by other editors who have either left or banned because of the literal tug-of-war which has been going on here. 209.214.20.172 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PhD inclusion: As I've stated before, most recently a few paragraphs above, if there are no reliable sources, there's no point in including it in the article. Once again, no one's violating a Wiki-guideline.

You are clearly wrong and I'm not going to repeat what I already said about this. Your assertion that just because you can't confirm its existence, is in line with saying that if you close your eyes and say that the sky is Blue, it must be so, even if its the dead of night. There are laws that clearly make that distinction for you. Apart from the noise made by Huffman and those who have an agenda to promote, it is widely known that as famous as he is, if he didn't have Ph.D. he wouldn't claim to have one. Without going into original research, the man's demonstrated ego clearly dictates thus. Now YOU don't have to believe him and Wiki doesn't care what YOU believe or don't believe. You are writing an encyclopedia. If Derek Smart says that he is seven foot tall and you can't prove it, that doesn't make him six feet or eight feet tall. So, what are you going to do then? 209.214.20.172 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ars Technica article: I wasn't involved in the most recent change of words above because I took a Wiki-break after the Arbcom ruling. I think it would be more appropriate to place it in the online controversy section, fix a few grammatical errors, and perhaps clarify Ben Kuchera's title and the fact that his statements are opinion. I should point out, however, that if you believe Kuchera's statements violate WP:RS, the inclusion of Smart's bio as the only source for his PhD is definitely a violation as well.

This is a no-brainer. As soon as I can locate my password, I am going to login and remove the article. It is poorly sourced, derogatory, based on original research and very clearly does not meet WP:BLP. I am quite sure that you know this but, like everything else, choose to ignore it because you don't want to attract the ire of the rest of the cabal. 209.214.20.172 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Werewolves link: I stated a while back that I'm not going to touch this one. The link isn't in there right now, so there is no issue, one way or another. Since you have requested it, however, I will join the fray if this issue comes up again.

Again, you KNOW that as per WP:BLP and WP:RS that it does not belong in the article. You choose to not touch this one because you don't want to upset your nice little group of like minded editors here. Thats how Wiki works and you're just going with the flow. 209.214.20.172 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, there you have it. I've tried to answer your questions in a detailed and thoughtful manner. I imagine that rather than encourage the debate with a similar set of comment, you'll use some glib remark or insult in your response; that is, if you respond at all. I encourage you to prove me wrong. Cardinal2 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All you've done is dance around the real issues. You have achieved nothing. 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says about all we need to know about the alleged reliability of Mr. Smart's self-published bio:

“

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: relevant to the self-publisher's notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing

”

--Beaker342 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Apart from that, his online bio (linked to in the article) has it right there in it. (1) There is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote the bio. Its on his personal webpage (2) it is relevant to his notability (3) it is not contentious in any regard because there are no reliable sources which raise such a contention (4) it is not self-serving. Its not like he's going around saying he's the greatest guy who ever lived, because he has a Ph.D. After all Bill Huffman here is clearly the only person (he is the only one, on the whole Usenet, who not only has a website dedicated to this, but who for almost ten years has been consumed by it; and still is) who has been pushing the agenda and libelous notion that he's degree is fraudulent; and without a shred of evidence I might add (5) it is definitely not self-aggrandizing and there is no proof (reliable or otherwise) of that 208.60.248.101 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the website showing Derek Smart's claim about his PhD is just a reliable source for the fact that Derek Smart claims he has a PhD, not that he actually has one. And given the incredible, dogged, vanity of the man (you only have to look at the history of this page, or at Huffman's website or the vast and tedious Derek flamewar for proof), I think it's fair to say that almost ANY statement Derek Smart says about himself is likely to be unduly self-serving and self-aggrandizing. --Aim Here 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that everything you just said is poorly sourced and consititutes original research, I wouldn't have expected any other comment from you. All one needs to do is pull up the posting history of you and other agenda pushing editors (not all here are like that) to see the same pattern. You can't prove a negative. Also, this article is an encyclopedia, not a witch hunt, not a call to arms and not your personal playground. You can say and think anything you like about the man but none of it will mean squat because Wiki doesn't care about what you think. They already figured in people like you and your friends, which is why WP:BLP exists. As someone said earlier, this article is a clear example of why Wiki is failing and will eventually be relegated to obscurity in much the same way that upstart Google took over the online search world. It is a social experiment wrought with the throes failure because it relies, first and foremost, on the good will and behavior of the editors. And like everything in society, humans, like you, cannot be trusted or placed in positions of authority because you can and will abuse it for self gain. Thats why politicians, people on positions of authority etc go to jail. 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, most of what I said was just opinion that doesn't warrant sourcing - though my first sentence needs to be addressed with something more than your usual ad-hominem attacks. As for 'You can't prove a negative', that's true. That's why the onus of proof is on Derek Smart to prove he has a PhD. In fact, if he was to put out enough details about his PhD to make the facts verifiable, or otherwise, that would make a claim worth putting in the encyclopedia. Claiming to have a PhD without giving enough details that it can be empirically checked is about as vague and worthless as saying 'Bigfoot exists' without saying what to do to catch one. And to be honest, do you of all people really think you can accuse others of 'agenda pushing' and abusing wikipedia for 'self-gain' with a clear conscience? I don't have anything to gain from being here. My contact with Derek Smart (other than dealing with his surrogates or sockpuppets here) amounts to seeing the rather unimpressive first version of BC3k and killfiling his interminable usenet flamewars. I'm hardly an agenda-driven obsessive. --Aim Here 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a more politically correct way of stating something similar is that his statements always seem to be very subjective. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact quote of policy that leads me to believe that we could use Dr. Smart's quotes from Usenet where he says that he will not reveal his alma mater. The statement is relevant to the self-publisher's notability; it's not contentious, no one disputes that he hasn't publicly revealed his school name; it's definitely not self-serving or self aggrandizing. There's no reasonable doubt that it was him and he repeated it many times. It was self-published online. It would seem to be a reasonable and reliable source. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't use his Usenet quotes because they go against WP:RS. 208.60.248.101 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

“

”

I believe the quote came from WP:RS (or perhaps WP:ATT). Therefore it wouldn't be a violoation. So, exactly which part of the policy do you think it is violating? Thanks, Bill Huffman 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(un indented) From WP:BLP

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
It is relevant to the person's notability;
It is not contentious;
It is not unduly self-serving;
There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

From WP:Auto

It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.

– The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Ninth

Although humorous, the above illustrates the several fundamental problems with autobiographies:

They are often biased, usually positively (see puffery). People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. Wikipedia does not present opinions as facts. Muhammad Ali writing "I am the greatest" in a Wikipedia article about himself is not acceptable, for example. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (which does not mean simply writing in the third person).
They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) However true something may be, if readers cannot verify it, it does not belong here. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.
They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. (For example: Unless your shoe size is, for some extraordinary reason, already a matter of widespread public knowledge, including your shoe size in an article about yourself is original research, since verifying it would require readers to come to you and measure your feet for themselves.) Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and as such, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.

Not using Mr Smart's autobiography as a sole source for attritubtion for his having Ph.D is entirely in line with those policies. It fails verifability. (Missed signing - apologies to all) Catwhoorg 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it has to pass ALL of the tests above, then I agree with you 100%. However, maybe its just me, but it doesn't look like the source has to pass all of those tests. Which is why I pointed to his bio. If that is not the case, then lets move on and leave it out. 209.214.18.80 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this situation is extremely clear-cut. If Mr. Smart refuses to release any information relating to his PhD, in particular the institution from which he earned it and the year in which he earned it, that is his right; however, by withholding that information, he makes it well-nigh impossible for objective sources (such as those which fit the guidelines of WP:RS) to verify the existence of said PhD, which prevents them from reliably reporting that Mr. Smart indeed has a PhD, which therefore prevents the mention of any such PhD on the "Derek Smart" Wikipedia page. In addition, since the only "reliable sources" that have been unearthed are (1) Mr. Smart's self-penned biography (which leaves out absolutely crucial information - institution and year) and (2) postings by Mr. Smart on Usenet (which do not fit the Wiki definition of reliable sources), there are insufficient grounds to mention this PhD in the article, either in passing or through any discussion of a "degree controversy". If we, or any other sources, knew the details of Mr. Smart's PhD, that degree could be verified and included with relative ease and speed. Until then, we would be irresponsible editors if we allowed mention of this degree in the body of the article. Venicemenace 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this reasonable assertion. However, the claim that he he refuses to release any information relating to his PhD is poorly sourced and constitutes original research. Do you have any WP:RS evidence that this is in fact the case? IIRC, he stated (on Usenet or was it an interview? I can't seem to recall now) that it was obtained from an unaccredited institution. What I do remember is that Huffman posted that since it wasn't accredited, that it had to be fake, from a degree mill etc. All of which is based on conjecture (and can easily be called libelous) because he can't prove it nor point to any evidence of those claims). Could the fact that its not accredited very well be the reason for him not discussing it further? I dunno. Lets face it, his PhD or lackof should really only be a concern to someone wanting to do business (or hire him) with him based on that. Seriously, am I only the person here who finds it odd that thus far nobody (in the media, his business partnerss, his fan base etc) gives a shit? Or am I clearly missing something here?

What we are debating here is, do we includde it or not? I think we should because there really isn't any reasonable explanation or tangible reason why we shouldn't. The voices of the few saying that since nobody can find it, so it must be fake is irrelevant and the Wiki article has nothing to do with that. Several articles, interviews etc have addressed him as Dr. Smart. What? They know something that we don't?

FYI, I have a copy (the latest edition) of Computer Games Magazine which (like the CGW article from a few years back) discusses him, the PhD controversy etc. Not a single mention of it being contentious. When I get home after work, I will post some excerpts from that article. But its in the April 2007 issue. This, btw, is also the first magazine (back when it was was called Computer Games & Strategy Plus) to introduce Derek Smart to the world when they did a cover article and preview of his first game back in 1992. 209.214.18.80 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never claimed outright that he has refused to release info; I said "if Mr. Smart refuses" (emphasis added) -- but that's a minor point of contention. My perspective on this debate is that of a wholly neutral observer with zero prior knowledge of Derek Smart before working on this article. As such, I would like to be convinced of facts before supporting them for inclusion. There is a lot of negative information about Mr. Smart out there that I do not believe belongs in the article, because it cannot be adequately sourced - the "soda machine incident" is a good example. On the flip side, Mr. Smart's claimed accomplishments must also be adequately sourced before they can be included in an NPOV article about him. (Unless, of course, we say "he claims this but no proof is presented" or slap the claim with a fact tag, both of which verge on pejorative and probably aren't appropriate given the controversy surrounding the article.) In my informed opinion, with regard to wiki policies, "We can't prove it's not real so therefore we must include it" or "Why would he claim this if it wasn't true?" are not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Conservapedia may be willing to take things on faith, but that is not the way that Wikipedia operates; the burden of proof is on those who wish to include this piece of information. In the wake of the Essjay debacle, I would hope that Wikipedians would recognize the need to verify academic credentials before giving them any credence - and said verification must go beyond "X says he has a degree" or "Source Y takes X's claims to a degree on faith". As a result, until I see a verifiable source that states factually (1) the institution that awarded Mr. Smart a PhD; (2) the field in which said PhD was awarded; and (3) the year in which said PhD was awarded, I will continue to oppose mention of said degree in this article. Regards, Venicemenace 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violating material removed. Please STOP doing that. Thanks. Nobody CARES about what you think Bill. You've been singing this same song for almost eleven years now and gained nothing. Please leave the editors to complete the article without your incessant injection of Wiki violating material. This is not Usenet. I'm sure that if anyone is interested in your thoughts about this, they know where your website is. I will continue removing your Wiki violating material until you realize that your efforts at ignoring the rules are futile. 209.214.21.13 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon, please stop deleting items just because you are having trouble dealing with the truth. You told lies about what I said. I am merely trying to correct lies about what you claimed that I said. I never said that Derek Smart's doctorate was bogus simply because it is unaccredited. I said it was bogus because he stated that it was listed in the degree mill chapter of John Bear's guide. Here is a post by John Bear that states that one cannot get a valid degree from an entity listed in the degree mill chapter of his guide. http://follies.werewolves.org/archives/1PhrauD/DrBearSaysDegreeMillFraud.txt Here is a quite complete listing of everything I've said about Dr. Smart's academic credentials. http://follies.werewolves.org/PhDFraud/ I would like you to note that no where in there do I state that a doctorate is bogus simply because it is unaccredited. Thanks, Bill Huffman 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Bill, time to open up an RFc against you and to report this on the living persons biography noticeboard. I am certain that you know that what you're doing is against the rules, but since you remain unchallenged by anyone but me, though others KNOW that you are breaking the rules, you continue to do it. You have changed your story so many times and misused the comments of others that everyone has pretty much lost track of who said what when. I saw a Usenet thread in which you were called to task over deliberately misquoting Dr. Bear over the Derek Smart issue. There was also a Usenet thread detailing how you were beat up and shown the door when you tried to take this same crap over to a distance learning site as well as the alt.ed Usenet forum.

There is NO evidence ANYWHERE that Derek Smart got his Ph.D. from a degree mill, an accredited or unaccredited university or such. He says he has one from an unaccredited institution and you claim that if its in Dr. Bear's book, that it must be a degree mill. That information was already proven to be false because the John Bear book lists accredited, non-accredited and degree mills. You twisted those facts to suit your purpose. Since you do NOT know which college it is, you can't state that its from a degree mill or even that it exists at all. Thats libel. And WP:BLP protects this article from people such as yourself. An excerpt from the book's description

For 30 years, BEAR’S GUIDE TO EARNING DEGREES BY DISTANCE LEARNING is the most comprehensive, respected, and opinionated guide to the potential minefield of non-traditional education. It ’s often faster, cheaper, and even better to earn an associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate, medical, or law degree off campus. As more schools bring the classroom to the student through mail, video, and the internet, the need for an accurate, up-to-date, and technically savvy resource is more crucial than ever. This is the guide for anyone looking to advance a stalled career, return to the workforce, or take the next step to advance his or her education. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

As to your Wiki violations, Here is the notice from the FRONT PAGE of this talk page:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

And here is the notice from the WP:BLP page and which I have cited more than once already:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel

This Wiki article is about the biography of a living person. There are very strict rules and guidelines which govern its editorial. You are once again trying to skirt the rules and turn this article into the same argumentative and libelous mess that you started on Usenet and elsewhere, despite the fact that you've been branded a zealot, a net kook and much worse. After being ignored on Usenet and laughed at elsewhere, you are now using Wiki for the same purpose that fueled your obbsession with this person. Please find something else to make life worth living, because as long as there are people like me (who can make up their own minds) you will never get away with that nonsense on this Wiki page. 208.60.251.161 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we're trying to keep iffy material OUT of the Derek Smart article, what's your need to invoke WP:BLP anyways? There's a controversial statement of doubtful veracity here, and rather than have wikipedia say something false, we're playing it safe and keeping it out of the article until there's verification either way. Your argument is something like 'Derek Smart says he has a PhD, and since saying he doesn't would be calling him a liar, that's libellous, WP:BLP means we should uncritically accept everything he says'. Which plainly flies against common sense, not to mention WP:V. Since we can't take Derek Smart's word for anything other than what Derek Smart claims (i.e. the only sourced fact is that he claims a PhD, not that he has one) from WP:V and since we have to be uber-careful about libel, per WP:BLP, then the sane course of action is to keep the PhD claim out of the article until there's a verifiable fact we can use. Case closed. Now find something else to get your knickers in a twist about. --Aim Here 13:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We? Whose we? I don't see you doing any such thing. There are editors here trying to keep the article npov. You are not one of them. You have made little to no meaningful contribution to the article and you are certainly nowhere near being an npov editor. So who is this we, again? If you were npov, you and your cabal of friends here would adhere to the WP:BLP rules as it applies to both the article and the talk page. 209.214.20.148 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to throw empty ad-hominems at me all you like. If you can't answer the substance of what I was saying, (i.e. that your WP:BLP misreading is absurd, and that WP:BLP or WP:V would conflict with anything we have to say on the subject of Derek's PhD), then I guess I'm right. --Aim Here 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon poster above said the following false things about me.

I saw a Usenet thread in which you were called to task over deliberately misquoting Dr. Bear over the Derek Smart issue. There was also a Usenet thread detailing how you were beat up and shown the door when you tried to take this same crap over to a distance learning site as well as the alt.ed Usenet forum.

There is NO evidence ANYWHERE that Derek Smart got his Ph.D. from a degree mill, an accredited or unaccredited university or such. He says he has one from an unaccredited institution and you claim that if its in Dr. Bear's book, that it must be a degree mill.

None of the above is true. Point at a Usenet thread where the above happened. Regarding your statement about "NO evidence ANYWHERE", here's one example, in an email to Ed Bain that Derek posted on Usenet 9/11/1999, Derek stated, "Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*" Dr. Bear's book is primarily for serious students searching for a school to take distance learning. I would never say that the great institutions listed in there are all degree mills. The institutions listed in the degree mill chapter are the bottom of the barrel, most flagrant diploma mills on the planet though. A source for the above is http://follies.werewolves.org/PhDFraud/ . Here's the Google copy of Derek's post that contains the above quote. [5] Bill Huffman 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New consensus

Actually, there are two:-

The consensus among the named editors is that there should be no mention of a PhD in the article, because there is no reliable source of information either way on this matter.
The consensus among the IP addresses is that we should give Smart the benefit of the doubt so that we don't give the impression of being mean or having an axe to grind.

I would say more but I fear it might constitute original research. SheffieldSteel 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a fine summary of the consensus to me. Regards, Bill Huffman 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would qualify the IP addresses line by saying that only seems to be the consensus among Bell South IP addresses hailing from the Fort Lauderdale area. We don't have enough comments from anonymous editors outwith that area to make a judgement on what they think--Aim Here 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I choose not to register because I have seen how you people (like so many elsewhere on Wiki) gang up on other editors who don't share your flawed logic and hate for this person and get them banned. So why bother? Now, if you think that having an IP from Fort Lauderdale means anything, let me assure you that every ISP in North America has dial-up numbers all of the US. So, I could very well be in Spokane but calling into a California number. 209.214.20.15

You have an IP that rewards you for making long distance phone calls? Sign me up! SheffieldSteel 15:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say that I was making long distance phone calls or being rewarded? Don't put words in my mouth. 209.214.21.136 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could only think of one other motivation that would account for you being "in Spokane but calling into a California number," and to chose between the two hypotheses I applied WP:AGF. SheffieldSteel 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you assumed good faith, you wouldn't be making such nonsensical comments. I am an anon editor just like YOU because I chose it. You don't have to like it and I don't care. Please focus on the article instead of on other users. 209.214.20.172 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the IP address consensus appears to be a single Derek Smart surrogate, as mentioned in the ArbCom ruling, is there any point to the discussion on Derek's PhD? Derek's surrogates are currently banned from editing the article, and if all they're going to do here is spam the talk page with this interminable and futile discussion on whether the article should uncritically accept what looks increasingly like a self-serving lie by the article subject, we could just go with the consensus among non-surrogates, ignore him until there's evidence either way on Smart's PhD, and do something less futile instead. --Aim Here 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

Just a friendly reminder to not feed the trolls. I'm very happy that we're all willing to engage in conversation and debate but I'm sure that we can all recognize when we're being trolled. Please don't take the bait. --ElKevbo 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no trolls on this page and my guess is that you are refering to me. You and Ehheh are the primary persons ruining this page, ignoring Wiki policy and doing the same thing that got this page in ArbCom. You don't make any worthy edits, you blank talk page comments, you revert removed material when in fact said material clearly violates Wiki policy.

No other editor here, not even Huffman (whose Wiki violating posts were removed by me), is doing this. This and past actions demonstrate a clear pattern of behavior. Behavior which ArbCom clearly ruled against and reminded everyone to adhere to the rules.

This page is protected by WP:BLP. I am quite sure that you know what that means, though you choose to ignore it. Please read the tag on the very first page of this talk page.

Calling Derek Smart a fraud in the article and/or the talk page, is a violation of policy. Every unsourced or poorly sourced material is subject to removal.

Finally, I want to advise the other editors that unless you all chime in and get this [cabal] to adhere to the rules, your otherwise notable efforts will be in vain and you might as well stop editing now. So many other editors have left because of this. If you pull up the editing history of Ehheh, ElKevbo and Kerr, the pattern of conduct will be clear. They are not here to help develop a good article. They are here to defame and libel this person for whatever reason.

Though I have been on Wiki for a while (I actually do have a username, but have forgotten my password since changing my email address), I have opted not to edit the article because I want to adhere to the rules.

I urge you all to please adhere to the rules or several things will happen all at once. None of them will be beneficial to this article or your efforts.

209.214.20.172 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone dial down the rhetoric and confrontational approaches. Let us assume good faith all round and work to build consensus rather than confrontation. The soda machine discussion is a good example of this, that led to an improvement in the article. Catwhoorg 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported on WP:BLPN

I have filed a report and am in the process of filing RFc against several editors here. Since its my day off, we can do this all day. 208.60.251.161 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A Possible Different Approach

One of the 'issues' with this page as I see it, is that it ties Mr Smart, the Company 3000AD and a lot of the information about the individual games into a single article.

I offer a comparable games developer Chris Sawyer who article at the moment is a stub, but with relevant links to many of the projects. Now Chris's article definately needs finishing off and expanding, but might it not defuse some of the convtroversy raging if Mr Samrt, the 3000AD Company and the games were better seperated ?

For example, if the 3000AD (company) article was created with a future releases section. Wouldn't the Ars Technica article be better placed there. However, as Ben has linked Mr Smart personally in the quote that may be difficult to do.

Some arugments against I can anticpate, are that the topics are so intertwined that it can be hard to prise them apart, and also it may be better to have one higher quality, longer article than several shorter ones.

Thoughts and comments folks please Catwhoorg 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The ars technica link by Ben is more appropriate to Smart's own Bio. The thing is that Smart's releases of games are controversial by their own right. His release of bc3000ad was immensly controversial due to protracted developement, his universal combat too was eventually released as dreamcatcher ran out of patience with Smart's protracted developement and ended up in a lawsuit, so Smart's game releases too are intimiately linked with the mans biography and controversial nature due to the very controversies surrounding them (lawsuits, buggy releases). Hnce I am against the seperation of the exiting article. Kerr avon 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is an interesting idea. I think Catwhoorg's creative thinking and goal oriented thoughts should be applauded! Separating the article into two separate articles I don't think can be justified from a notability point of view, though. A few months back there was a suggestion that this whole article should be deleted. At the time, I thought it was possibly a very nice solution to the controvery. Since that time, we had the ArbCom ruling and I've learned better that Wikipedia can actually handle these type of issues fairly well. So I think the idea of splitting the article fails the notability test. Perhaps separating the two aspects more within the same article might help though? Regards, Bill Huffman 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I strongly agree with Catwhoorg. This article needs to be severely curtailed and the information about the company and its games should be spun off into new articles when appropriate. Look at the pages for Will Wright or Sid Meier. These game designers are very high-profile, with many notable games to their credit, but their Wikipedia pages don't belabor the development processes of every game they've created or include GameSpot reviews of, say, SimCity or Railroad Tycoon. Meier's article mentions that he founded MicroProse and Firaxis, but leaves the details of those company's operations for their respective pages. The fact that this page is a clearinghouse for all things Derek Smart broadens the number of topics on which his detractors and supporters can engage in combat, which isn't helping the development of the article; but more importantly, a properly encyclopedic approach to this topic requires that ancillary or extraneous material should be removed from the article. Venicemenace 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that if the stuff about Smart's company and games is removed from the article, the online controversy section will seem overlarge in comparison to the biographical details. - Ehheh 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Like Ehheh says, if we separate out the game information the only thing left will be the online controversey section. As discussed in the last archive of this talk page, most of the editors agreed that it would be good to temper the online controversey portion of the article with some biographical details in order to balance the article better and make Dr. Smart appear more human and make the article better address the biography theme. We can't even give the date of birth, marriage, or offspring information regarding Dr. Smart. I still feel that the article could be greatly improved with this information but we have to work with the information that we do have, which is online controversey and game developement. Splitting it apart, I fear, will make neither article notable and there will be nothing to balance out the online controversey section. Regards, Bill Huffman 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Since some random anon keeps vandalizing other people's comments and trolling, I have semi-protected the page for the time being to allow us to make forward progress. Anon, if you wish to participate here, you're going to have to stop being disruptive.

Feel free to stop by my talk page. If you promise to (1) stop changing the comments of other users and (2) stop hurling insults at your fellow editors, then I will lift the semiprotection early. If you insist on continuing to be disruptive, then you will not be permitted to have a voice here. Nandesuka 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nandesuka, I apologize to all editors for allowing myself to sometimes respond to the Anon's attacks and false statements when maybe I shouldn't bother. I promise that I do try to resist and I try to be somewhat balanced about it but it can be trying at times. I guess that semi-protected means that one must be logged into an editting account in order to post, especially if this save page works. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it whenever Supreme Cmdr or one of his sockpuppets is blocked an anon shows up who has magically forgotten his registration information? I would submit as additional evidence that our friend the Cmdr has been evading his ban (besides the beligerant tone and extensive knowledge of the article's history) that his recent edits mistakenly link to WP:RL instead of WP:RS, a mistake also made by Supreme Cmdr sockpuppet BlindMoose [6].--Beaker342 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr should be made aware that each time he violates his ban, the time period is reset to run from the point of last violation. Nandesuka 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we allowed to leave the talk page semi-protected indefinitely? Because given Smart's history, he'll probably come back and vandalize it again if it is unprotected in two years. Adam 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is understandably very concerned about inappropriate things showing up in the articles, especially WP:BLP. The Derek Smart surrogates need some outlet for perceived greivances. If you look on the very early history of the article there was real vandalism, plan insults against Dr. Smart being added to the article. Some may argue that he earned it in a way but there should be zero tolerance for that kind of thing on Wikipedia. So, Derek has a legitimate concern but IMHO he doesn't have the ability to objectively evaluate when Wikipedia policies are being violated when he is in any way involved. Right now the avenues available to him have been further reduced and very reasonably in my opinion. He can create an account and post here or he can post on our talk pages. We cannot let his actions paralyze the work that needs to get done on the article but I believe we need to continue to try to be somewhat sensitive to his sad situation. I really feel that we have a good group of editors here that can get the job done. Sincerely, Bill Huffman 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Bill. I am never happy when we must protect or even semi-protect Talk pages for the reasons you have listed. While I won't extend the First Amendment to Wikipedia, I do insist we embrace a very strong stance advocating discussion and dissension on the Talk pages similar to the concept of Academic Freedom. I'm saddened that we've had to resort to semi-protecting this page but outright disruption and editing of others' comments is intolerable and not comparable to even strong dissent and disagreement. --ElKevbo 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to business

Things have seemed to stabilize here for now, so I thought I'd ask for a couple of opinions regarding actual edits to the article. Normally, I'd edit first and ask questions later, but given how that's worked out in the past, I thought I'd give this a go instead.

1) Should this "Galactic Command" title be merged into the "Current Projects" thread? A quick look at Gamespot indicates it's not out yet, although that might change in the next half-year. Another option is to retitle "Game Development" something like "Past Projects", upgrade the subject-level of "Current Projects", and then move Galactic Command into the latter as a subsection. I hope someone else has any further info on this game, because, quite frankly, it's pretty sparse.

2) Kind of off-topic, but should the Battlecruiser:Millenium page be merged into the BC3K page? I mean, there's practically no info there other than "It's the sequel to BC3K."

3) Should we archive a portion of this talk page? It's getting pretty long. As a side note, at first I thought we were reaching a record for talk page archives. I quickly found out that I was mistaken.

Before I go, I want to mention to a certain anon (even though it's semi-protected): these are simply formatting edits. If applied, they don't affect content. There's no point in edit warring over them. Cardinal2 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 1) and 2). Number 3) I'm thinking probably not yet. These are pretty fresh topics and less active editors might still weigh in with their opinion. Good job, Bill Huffman 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/r/Talk%7EDerek_Smart_95f5.html"