From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Making threats of lawsuits 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed case summary 4.2 Proposed principles 4.2.1 Conflict of interest 4.2.2 Transparency in editing 4.2.3 Article quality and sourcing 4.2.4 Use of primary sources 4.2.5 Biographies of living persons 4.2.6 Template 4.2.7 Template 4.3 Proposed findings of fact 4.3.1 Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts 4.3.2 Article raises concerns about quality 4.3.3 No evidence of legal threats 4.3.4 Supreme Cmdr incivil 4.3.5 Article ban unenforced 4.3.6 Bill Huffman 4.3.6.1 Personal attacks and harassment by Bill Huffman 4.3.7 Outside comment 4.3.8 Derek Smart 4.3.9 Template 4.3.10 Template 4.3.11 Template 4.3.12 Template 4.3.13 Template 4.4 Proposed remedies 4.4.1 Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts 4.4.2 Referred for cleanup 4.4.3 Supreme Cmdr banned for one year 4.4.4 WarHawkSP blocked indefinitely 4.4.5 Supreme Cmdr blocked indefinitely 4.4.6 Supreme Cmdr 4.4.7 Supreme_Cmdr blocked indefinitely from editing Derek Smart but allowed on Talk:Derek Smart 4.4.8 Supreme Cmdr and WarHawkSP blocked from editing Derek Smart, with permanent semi protection for the Derek Smart article 4.4.9 Template 4.5 Proposed enforcement 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.6 Analysis of evidence 4.6.1 Template 4.6.2 Template 4.6.3 Template 4.6.4 Template 4.6.5 Template 4.6.6 Template 4.6.7 Template 4.7 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Making threats of lawsuits

1) I request that the suggested findings here that Supreme_Cmdr has not engaged in making legal threats be reconsidered based on the Supreme_Cmdr post on this very page below. [1] Thank you, Bill Huffman 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 2) Further seconded with this diff: [2] ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Here's a more recent diff that may be considered legal threat [3] Bill Huffman 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I second. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed case summary

The Derek Smart article which has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the arbitration committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

• apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
• the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
• concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
• questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As creator of original request, I find all 4 of these issues to be relevant to the case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. These seem to be the core issues. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've read on this page as posted thusfar is a concise and exact summary and I couldn't see the situation possibly interpreted any better. --Jeff 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Wikipedia that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

• comment on the article's discussion page, or
• contact a volunteer via email for assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Transparency in editing

2) Wikipedia:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

1. violate WP:3RR or other policy,
2. evade a block, or
3. avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, this committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded in all respects. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.Kerr avon 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded, however it should be noted that in this case, the subject is notable for having a significant lack of positive material available anywhere about him, and is famous/notorious for having a significant amount of critical material about him, something that he has relished and cultivated into further notoriety. Given this dispensation, I would argue that undue weight should be considered in the light of the entire population of material available (i.e. if out of all the sources on a subject, 90% are critical and only 10% are positive, including significantly more critical material than positive material would not be undue weight, given it's accurate representation of the population of material on the subject). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Even positive articles and reviews seems to come with the disclaimer about Smart's controversial, confrontational nature. I assert that the majority of citable sources out there are going to be negative or at least come with this type of rider. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats just blatant nonsense. It just goes to show that you editors do not know this person at all. Let me repeat your statement so that others can see the ludicrousness of it:

'the subject is notable for having a significant lack of positive material available anywhere about him, and is famous/notorious for having a significant amount of critical material about him'

Really? Well then, why don't you just go ahead and post examples of this premise instead of making blanket statements? All it takes is a single visit to the subject's website news area, as well as a Google article search to find that, apart from posts by individuals on forums and Usenet, not a single negative article about this person exists. Not one single article. Not one. Please, prove me wrong, go ahead and post one single article, from a source that is WP:RS that casts the subject in the light you portray and we'll go from there.

This is the problem. You folks are making this whole thing personal and completely forgetting that nobody gives a damn about your personal opinions. Wiki is an encyclopedia and this entry is covered under WP:BLP and as such has to adhere to strict guidelines, not conjecture, falsehoods, personal opinions, libel and the like.

You guys suceeded in driving away other notable neutral editors who got fed up with this behaviour. Since WarwahkSP and I are the only ones left fighting to keep this article neutral, we're the targets of all kinds of actions from you guys; as if we had anything to gain or lose. Fact is, we're just not going to let you guys get away with it. The Derek Smart talk page archives is rife with other neutral editors who have long since left before of YOUR behavior and pov-pushing agenda. In fact, several of them (e.g. User:Bblackmoor have posted such on their own Wiki pages.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester posted on the talk page that 99% of news about Derek Smart is negative. My reply to that is below.

I would like to see you post proof of your claim that 99% of the news about Derek Smart is negative. This is yet another blanket statement that you folks make and with no basis in reality nor which pass any form of the WP:RS muster. If what you claim were true, well then, why should a source such as Usenet which fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL be the only place where you can find such posts? Where are the WP:RS articles? Surely if 99% news about Derek Smart were negative, you wouldn't need the Usenet to find them would you? Nope, you wouldn't. Further, it is already clear that the Usenet posts were about The Great Flame War. Since when are people at their best in any flame war? So, even if there was negativity toward him and his supporters on Usenet as a result of The Great Flame War, how does that have anything to do with a WP:BLP article about a [supposed] public figure? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to know the article subject to write about him. In fact, that places me in a better position because I can be objective and not have Conflict of Interest. It appears that you, however have. I'd also advise you to review WP:OWN, comments like the one you just made "Fact is, we're just not going to let you guys get away with it. " are not in line with that policy, and appear especially hypocritical when you claim that we are all making this personal. Last time I've checked, I've edited at least 3,000 distinct articles on wikipedia, and I'm well over 8,000 edits last I checked. Less than 1% are on Derek Smart. SIGNIFICANTLY less than 1% are on Derek Smart. Please don't presume to lecture me about the workings of Wikipedia and policy, and being objective and claim that I have some personal stake in this, especially when you have a significant portion of your contributions to the Derek Smart article (possibly all of them? I haven't checked in some time), an article you've received a community ban from no less. I've been as impartial as possible with this article, I've only made 2 or 3 reverts on the article and that's it, the entire contribution I've made was mediation on the talk page, and the reverts I made were in line with consensus on the talk. I'm coming seriously close to losing my patience with this. I would like the Arbitrators to understand my position here: I'm a good editor for just over 1 year, I've got no warnings, an upstanding edit history, hell I even was interviewed recently in the news regarding Wikipedia. And the behavior and accusations flying around in this case are seriously enough to make me consider wanting to leave the project. It's just not worth that kind of stress. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd advise the Arbitrators to consider that the behaviors going around here may be affecting other editors the same way. There, I've said my piece. I hope I did it in a way that does not personally attack anyone and is is civil, I've tried not to, but if I did, then I'm sorry and I apologize. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority wish for a neutral blalanced article regarding Smart to be published. The problem is when SC and WarhawkSP repeatedly censor cited reliable sources critical of smart leading to edit wars. Smart has been one of the most famous flamers of all time in the history of the USENET, and has repeatedly promised features in his games which he has failed to deliver leading to lawsuits with the publishers, while Smart publicly absolves himself of all guilt, such actions have lead to a negative perception of Smart in the gaming industry and among the media in general. The Flame wars and the bc3000ad fiasco are not urban myths, they are documented and cited events which lead to Smart achieving his notoriety. Even reviewers of his games mention his volatile nature. As such any article should be permitted to contain cited comentrary critical of SmartKerr avon 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is my opinion that the bulk of people actively editing the Derek Smart article have an axe to grind against the subject of the article: I have no idea why this is so, but it seems manifestly apparent, nonetheless. Consensus may well be that Derek Smart is the spawn of Satan, but consensus is no replacement for verifiable fact. An urban myth does not turn into reality through frequent repetition, and it is my humble opinion that a web site that aspires to be a repository of knowledge should not indulge in the uncritical repetition of rumours. I don't think it should be too difficult to adhere to NPOV and reliable published sources (not rumours, not random and ultimately unverifiable UseNet posts, not "common knowledge" or popular mythology), particularly for a biography of a living person. (Note 1: For what it's worth, to the best of my knowledge I have never played any game Derek Smart has worked on, and I had never even heard of him prior to stumbling across this article last year. Note 2: I find it somewhat disquieting to have my dissatisfaction with Wikipedia used in this fashion.1 I may even reconsider what I have on my "about" page. In any event, I do not think it is relevant to the issue at hand.) -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

[edit] Use of primary sources

4) The appropriateness of using primary source material, such as an article subject's past posts to UseNET, is at present an evolving and unsettled area of Wikipedia policy. The arbitration committee, in its role as an interpreter rather than legislator of policy, offers no opinion on the suitability of such material for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I understand this, but am not happy with it. Could the committee then make it an agenda to get a consensus on this issue as soon as possible, by whatever means necessary? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am disappointed that the ruling on this matter is not more clear, but do appreciate the ambiguity left to pursue it.--Jeff 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you begin the discussion at WPT:RS or another suitable venue. While I don't believe I can speak for the committee on this, my view is that the appropriateness of primary sources varies depending both on the nature of the source and the nature of the use. We have been using the primary/secondary source distinction as a bellwether for the appropriateness of the source. Inappropriate secondary sources are less common than inappropriate primary sources. In utilizing primary sources, we would have to develop a sense of journalistic ethics that has thus far proven elusive. Such a sense of ethics would lead us to refrain from listing the speeding tickets and other traffic infractions for a public figure (which are a matter of public record in many jurisdictions), unless we're writing about Bill Janklow whose unsafe driving is well in the public eye. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my remarks on the talk page. Metamagician3000 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

5) Wikipedia's verifiability policy, among others, must be strictly enforced on articles about living people. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons explicitely states that poorly sourced negative information should be swiftly removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I share your concern to a degree, I believe that this is better approached from a standpoint of NPOV and undue weight than from a standpoint of sourcing. We have all kinds of NPOV articles about people who are notable chiefly due to something controversial. It can be done well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is important. Whatever else is going on in this mess, I have had some peripheral involvement and formed the view that a group of editors wanted to use the article to do a hatchet job on Smart in breach of WP:BLP. It is partly as a result of my intervention that the article leads off by referring to him as a game designer and not as a game designer and usenet warrior (or some such thing; I am exaggerating slightly). I will dig out relevant diffs if anyone believes that necessary. However, if some pro-Smart editors are banned from the article - or from Wikipedia more generally - as seems likely, there has to be a way to ensure that WP:BLP is honoured. Wikipedia is not a place to pursue grudges left over from some Usenet flame war. Metamagician3000 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very right. I believe there exists enough moderate/impartial editors to keep the article clean from external influence of a "hatchet" job. I almost used the word negative, but certain sources materials about the subject do inherently include things that some may consider negative (poor game reviews, for instance). This ArbCom request was started by an impartial editor, and I am also impartial. Certain other editors have less than genuine intentions, but what few contributions they have made have been removed from the article by outside parties already. I personally pledge to keep the article as free from personal attacks and material which is not supported by sources.--Jeff 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very important, but it is a difficult problem with regard to this article, because what makes Derek Smart notable is not suitable for inclusion under WP:BLP. His involvement in the USENET flamewar is what makes him notable (as compared to all of the other independent game developers who don't have Wikipedia articles about them). Information about the flamewar is by definition negative and questionably-sourced, but omitting said information would not be NPOV. If a solution can't be found that allows material about the flamewar to be included, I suggest deleting the article due to WP:N. Adam613 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam has a very succinct (and correct) point. Is it within ArbCom process to address whether the article should be deleted?--Jeff 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify what I meant by "suggest deleting the article". I'm no authority on these matters, but I didn't see anything in the RfAR about deleting the article, so I doubt that is on the table as a remedy. However, removing many of the article's sources IS on the table, and removing the information about the flame war would qualify the article to be (re)nominated for deletion under WP:N, as well as making it impossible to maintain WP:NPOV. Collateral damage, if you will. Adam613 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that there is a difference between notability (for our purpose) and notoriety. If the games that Smart designed are themselves significant as contributions to the popular culture, then that makes him notable. There may be other game designers who are notable by that criterion who do not yet have articles, but that is not relevant - someone might write those articles tomorrow. If it were well-known to attendees at gaming conventions that he (insert obnoxious or unusual behaviour here, whether it be hitting on female attendees, getting drunk and shouting, wearing a rubber suit and flippers around the hotel, or whatever) that might give him notoriety within certain (perhaps quite wide) circles, but it would not make him notable for the purpose of having a Wikipedia article. Metamagician3000 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no lack of people who have participated in flamewars on UseNet and other venues. In my opinion this does not even merit a mention in an encyclopedia article, much less warrant being a major portion of it. It's petty to the point of absurdity, and I think it's a pretty good indication of the mindset of people who want to tarnish Wikipedia with such nonsense. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

Computer Gaming World had a 4 page article [[4]] (article is currently hosted on the Derek Smart 3000AD server) with the tagline on the magazine cover being: "Attack Me. I can deal with it!" -Derek Smart on Derek Smart. and contains the text: "But if all we had was a lousy game on our hands, there would be no story here, or at least, not one we haven't heard a million times before. The real story is the man himself - Derek Smart, whose notoriety, like Dennis Rodman (to whom some people liken him) or Howard Starn (to whom he likens himself), comes not from what he does but from who he is and what he says."

This is a from the "The #1 PC games Magazine for 20 Years" - If a Reliable Source WP:RS says that his notoriety is more from what he says than what he does, then that statement is Verifiable WP:V and can/should be included in the article (with balance of course). Uncle uncle uncle 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it (which you clearly did), the article was about Derek Smart and the flamewar. If you have a hard time comprehending the context of what was written, you might want to read it again and save us another pointless debate. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 00:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying, can you clarify for me - Yes, I read the article and yes it is about Derek Smart and the flame war. The post I was replying to (the one immediately above the post I made) gave the opinion that "this [the flamewar] does not even merit a mention in an encyclopedia article" - I pointed out (and you confirmed) that Computer Gaming World (The #1 PC Games Magazine for 20 Years) gave the flame war a four page article and a mention on the front page. I also noted the reliability WP:RS and verifiability WP:V of that source. Uncle uncle uncle 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BBlackmoor already answered this. The point is that the article is about Derek Smart, not about a flame war. So for you say that the article can be used as WP:RS in order to support your flame war argument, is foolish. This is no different from what myself and others have said all along. That being, Derek Smart is a game developer. Thats what he is notable for. It just so happens that unlike others, he doesn't take crap from anyone. As such, if he is engaged, flames usually ensue. Thats what happens when people engage in argument. So, why does it need to be in the Wiki encyclopedia? By that litmus test, if someone were to capture Derek Smart having an argument with someone at a trade show, that should also be entered into the Wiki. Thats just silly and is just another example of how you folks want to inject nonsense into the Wiki and would do anything to have opposition banned from editing the article. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(comments deleted)-- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-11 05:28Z

Please don't impugn the motivations of those who disagree with you. It is a violation of WP:AGF. While there are clearly editors who by their actions have demonstrated that they have an axe to grind, the mere belief that Smart is notable for his internet persona is not of itself an indication of having any such axe. Smart generates a lot of press, not all of it favorable to him, and a lot of it has to do with his internet persona. As the article cited above stated, if Smart were just a developer and nothing but, no one would know who he was. It is his reputation on the internet that makes him notable. Furthermore, if his reputation as a flamer is mentioned in almost every article about him, I really don't see how it is inappropriate for us to mention it. In fact, I'm of the opinion that not mentioning it is a violation of NPOV, as Wikipedia should not be in the business of writing hagiographies. --Beaker342 08:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still spouting the same unwarranted, baseless, non-factual and argumentative spiel that got us in ArbCom in the first place. Thus far, all of you have made this same claim "Smart generates a lot of press, not all of it favorable to him, and a lot of it has to do with his internet persona". Yet thus far, despite several queries for WP:RS passing proof, NOONE has posted ANY material to back up this claim and NONE of the criteria for such have not been met.

There was that other person posting that 99% of the material on Derek Smart was negative. WP:RS Proof? None.

Then there was the other one about Derek Smart being notable for his persona and not his industry works and games. WP:RS Proof? None.

You can't just post stuff without material to back it up. Thats what WP:RS was clearly designed to prevent. And WP:BLP protects Derek Smart from this and many other violations by you and your friends who do have an axe to grind with Derek Smart and anyone (e.g. myself, WarhawkSP and others) who don't side with you. That is the same mentality that caused the Usenet flamewar and which was sparked, condoned and instigated by the likes of Bill Huffman and co. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here Bill, from the Working To Halt Online Abuse website, your state has clear laws about cyberstalking which you may or may not know exist. Please read it and you will see that your actions can only be construed as online stalking. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We've posted them TIME after TIME after TIME! Just because you don't accept themd oes NOT mean that we have an axe to grind, and does NOT mean that we haven't posted ANY material to back this up! In this very subsection there is a link to one of the best selling computer games magazines talking about Smart's flamewarring! Don't tell us that Computer Gaming World is not a reliable source, that's just trolling. It's your continued refusal to accept ANY evidence that Smart might have a single flaw that brought us to this ArbCom, not some imaginary axe that you think we have to grind here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, spare me this crap. You have not posted anything to backup your claims against Derek Smart. If you have, it shouldn't be too hard to POINT THEM OUT. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are throwing a blanket over a ludicrous claim. This ArbCom was not about CGW. The CGW article is not about a flame war. It is about Derek Smart. It just so happens to mention flame wars. It wasn't, what you determine to be a flaw (LOL!!!, thats just rich) that brought us to ArbCom. What brought us to ArbCom is that YOU folks want to ignore Wiki policy and guidelines in favor of injecting pov-pushing rhetoric into the Wiki because you don't like him. There is no other reason for it. Now you're calling a troll because you failed to grasp the very essence of my argument. Now why is that not surprising? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, [5] and you CANNOT call Gamespy a non reliable source. The article is called "The 25 Dumbest Moments in Gaming", and claims

The whole incident might have died away had Smart's mouth not continued running two miles ahead of his brain. Smart had been posting progress reports and answering questions on the game on AOL and Compuserve, then later on Usenet. The release of the game, though, began what some consider the longest running flame war on the Internet, with Smart and some of his fans on one side, and a whole bunch of detractors on the other. The intricacies of the flame war are very complicated, but there's a good summary of them here.

Hey, guess what the link is when you click "here"....it's the Werewolves.org site that you're so anxious to disallow. I COMPLETELY fail to see, therefore, how you can support any of your claims when I've just now shown you not only a major site doing a MAJOR article on Smart being primarily notable for his flamewar, but ALSO supports the source you disagree with so much as an acceptable link, actually as a "good summary". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters nothing. Everyone knows that there is at least one negative article about Derek Smart. The point I am making is that you and your friends claim that 99% or the majority or articles about him are negative. Even though I disagree with your example above, that is still just one and hardly qualifies as 99% or majority or whatever metric you guys want to use.

As to your example, how exactly is that negative? That is an opinion from one person. Who is that person to judge another person based on how they react to attack on them or their work? Please. And how exactly does he know that it would have died away? Does he have a crystal ball? Since when does anything on the Net just die away, given the scope of what we're discussing. When Smart left Usenet, did the flame war die away? I'm waiting for the first person to say yes, before I run off to Google and prove them wrong.

Your argument is baseless and you're just clutching at straws. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your opinion as to the fairness of weighting, if I have read and properly interpreted what you mean, Supreme_Cmdr. However you state that there is 'at least' one negative article about Derek Smart, what ratio would you consider to be 'bad press' to 'good press' regarding the man? It should be noted that though your objections are definitely coming from an understandable source, this article seems to represent an opinion from a notable source, thus it would seem to lend credence that there is at least a some evidence of negative opinion about the man. Even were they misguided notable opinions (i.e. people beleiving that there were witches at the times of the salem witch trials), to ignore the sources wholesale could well be detrimental to this wiki, and in fact to our picture of Derek Smart, the man. Whether he is a beleaguered man beset by those who do not want to accept him or what he does, or whether he is a proud man that is prone to becoming overly vitriolic in the face of criticism, or a mix of both, as we all know of course we are not here to uncover that. I think we ideally are here only to report what has been stated. Once again, I beleive that if we say 'free ticket, no one knows how he faced that time in his life', we are doing wikipedia, and our picture of the subject injustice. Is he here, is he you, is he ashamed, should he be proud? I mean no offense when I say this but I do state it with conviction, I don't beleive it matters regarding the immediate question. I got to know him for the negative things, I don't think that matters to the immediate question either. I do beleive there is a picture of controversy surrounding the man however. To paraphrase (but not to mock) Derek Smart, it is hiding in plain sight. 68.9.109.99 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Hey everyone. :) Supreme_Cmdr, though I agree that the article mentioned is about Derek Smart, the article about Derek Smart, as you said, mentions the flame war. However I consider it important that in doing so, it mentions Derek Smart's involvement in the flame war. This is, what some might consider to be, a highly reputable publication. You made argument here that if someone captured Derek Smart in an argument it should not be added. I would disagree in this instance, on grounds that your example would be one argument, whereas there are both notable and verifiable mentions of Derek Smart's behavior, if I'm interpreting what I read about those terms correctly. What comes to my mind is that you seem to think that the primary focus of verifiable material must be specifically about flame wars. However in a wiki about a person who is involved in such activities, an article about him, that mentions those activities, seems to be acceptable. May I also make a blanket statement, intended to be a neutral one in this discussion, and that is this: There seems to be some polarizing here. The inherent atmosphere of wikipedia, as I have seen, may slow this polarizing process when compared to other venues. But to those that might possibly be starting to view people of differing opinion as working against good faith, may I say that even if they are working against wikipedian ideals, you might not be able to help the situation by trying to 'force' them to accept an issue they will not. I truly beleive that it can only help those looking to create a war of attrition, as it might allow them upset and exhaust those who disagree until they move on. Once you make them your enemy, all you have to do is care more about winning than the other person, neutrality becomes a side issue at best, a casualty of war at worst. I do not mean to insult those here. I understand that am quite likely the least qualified to speak here about wikipedia policy. But it seems to me that assuming good faith and civility can do more than protect other wikipedians from undue harm by us, it can protect us from getting clouded in issues that cannot improve the article or the wikipedia process. If someone keeps trying to goad you into a fight, and you remain civil, it is clear who is trying to discuss and who is looking for a fight. If we come at this with a 'you want a war, you got a war' mentality, then it may not matter who 'shot first', as neutrality toward the article can be damaged and we can lose good editors as they move on to other articles. If only one side is consistently firing shots off, and that's all they do rather than addressing any open issues, then that is all the statement you are likely to get, but also all the statement you really need to understand their mindset. To those who may be upset or getting upset now, may I say this article, perhaps more than most, shows a need for neutral editors, every editor we lose due to emotion could be an editor lost for all the wrong reasons. 68.9.109.99 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk • contribs), WarHawk (talk • contribs), WarHawkSP (talk • contribs), and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Modified in light of comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I concur with this finding, with two exceptions: I reiterate my assertion that Mael-Num is not "affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article". Neither do I think User:Uncle uncle uncle is affiliated. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence "at least some". -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any edits in a disruptive fashion. My edits have been simple grammatical/spelling, semantic (earnings vs revenue), or date (released September vs released October vs released November), or tag removal after cleanup. These edits were nondisruptive and noncontroversial. I would like to be removed from the list of disruptive editors above. Uncle uncle uncle 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this, with the exception that as the nominator of the original RfAr, I did not name Uncle uncle uncle, and have not noticed him editing the page in the time period that I cited in the request. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a Single-Purpose Account, nor am I a sockpuppet of another user. I also would like to object to the assertion that I have made edits exclusively for or against Smart. If it can be shown that I have not "walked the line" of relative neutrality, I'd like to see the proof. Mael-Num 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits, Mael-Num (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) have shown that you have almost exclusively contributed to Derek Smart and related topics which fits the definition of a WP:SPA. The following edits [6], [7], [8], [9], all show you removing cited content critical of Smart vehemently, which cast's serious doubts over your claimed neutrality.Kerr avon 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Almost exclusively" is not exclusively. Thank you for conceding the point that I am not a WP:SPA. The reasons editing for the "cited material" were given, and they had everything to do with the lack of neutrality in said edits. Merely providing a citation is not in itself a guarantee that what you are adding is neutral or factual, and presenting your argument in such a way smacks of gaming the system. More importantly Kerr...aren't you supped to WP:AGF? Mael-Num 09:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the definition of a SPA, "A single purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles". Your edits have shown your account Mael-Num (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) to be used to edit the Derek Smart page, with a random edit here and there which could be to constructed as a attempt to "legitimise" your account and to divert criticism away from a possible SPA. One must also consider other circumstances such as,

1. Your account was created on 29 October 2005 which is exactly one month after the creation of the account Supreme_Cmdr [10], your account was dormant from 11 November 2005, to 29 November 2006, which is 1 year. Then you suddenly appear and on 5 December 2006 you make the following edit which is incidently your first edit to the Derek Smart article "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=92233292", in which you call supreme_cmdr "SC", which indicates a familiarness with the Supreme_Cmdr and the article in question. Only people knowledgable regarding Smart call him SC. For a user who has been dormant for 1 year and a new one to the Smart topic, your edits show you to be pretty well knowledged regarding Smart.

2.Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP have threatened frequently to file a RFC against me [11], and when you appeared on the scene one of the first things you did was to file a rfc against me [12] on 13 December 2006, a mere week after showing up. The only people who have shown any interest in the RFC were yourself and Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP. The fact that you are a SPA and your above actions cast serious doubt on your claimed neutrality.09:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. By your own admission, I wasn't active in the editing of Derek Smart for around the time of 1 year. So, clearly, I was doing other things with my account well in advance of my participation in this article. I have participated in several other articles. I will admit that none has interested me as much as this article, but as far as I know, I don't need to justify my interests to you or anyone else in order to participate.

2. So, you've concluded that I must be a WP:SPA and a WP:SOCK because I filed a RFC against you? It wasn't one of the first things I did (one of the first things I actually did do was copy-edit the current version of the Derek Smart article) as you returned to the scene days later. In fact, you only seemed to find fault with me when I pointed out that your edits are overwhelmingly negative and apparently biased. Do you find it more helpful to cast aspersions on fellow editors rather than listen to them? Personally, I don't find that method helpful. Mael-Num 09:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I conclude that you are a SPA based on your edits which show that you have predominantly edited Derek Smart and related topics. I conclude that you are a sock puppet because of your undue interest and fmiliarity with Smart and your edits, your very first edit was calling supreme_cmdr "SC", a term which is used by people very familiar with Smart and related topics.Kerr avon 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Either that or I called him "SC" because it's just shorter. Did you happen to notice that in the edit you're quoting, I am effectively telling my "ol' buddy SC" to STFU? Yeah, I must obviously be his best friend. Or rather, I must be him. I must have had some crazy premonition that I would need no less than four accounts and have created this one a year before I ever decided to use it for its true evil purpose, have edited numerous other unrelated articles merely to obfuscate my identity, reverted my own work, argued with myself, and even rewired my brain so that I have a completely different writing style as Mael-Num than I do as Warhawk, "SC", or WarhawkSP. Oh yeah, and while my other three accounts were banned or otherwise unable to edit the article, rather than use Mael-Num (which had been used already that same day) I logged in anon[13] instead of my well-concealed alter ego. I guess I just lost the slip of paper I wrote the password down on. One can never be too careful when sock-puppeting, because look, Kerr Avon was smaert enuff too didoose my altar eggo! All by himself! So irrefutable was his proof, rather than discuss his well-founded theory, he opted instead to just slander away with personal attacks, much as he's doing here [14].

Look, all sarcasm aside, either your ludicrous theory is correct, or you're just grouchy because I blew the whistle on you after you WP:3RR rather than discuss the inclusion of an article that I argued wasn't WP:NPOV. The result of the discussion was that consensus agreed with my argument [15][16][17][18]. The only way someone could come to hold your unique opinion on my identity is if they were blinding their eye to the facts at hand, or a complete moron. Surely, you must fall into the realm of the former, right "Doc"? I urge you to reconsider your conclusions. Mael-Num 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Initially you started of critical of Smart (possibly as a diversion from your real purpose) then as evidenced by your reverting of edits by me, you were definitely pro Smart removing commentrary critical of him and edit warring with others, getting warned for incivility and even filing a RFC against me within just one week of editing the article which shows a remarkable familiarity. There was no consensus agreeing with you, please do not distort facts. Other traits similar to Supreme_Cmdr are you ability to quote wikipedia guidlines ad nauseum, and violating WP:NPA, by your questioning my credentials as a doctor as evidenced by the word Doc in quotes in your statement("Doc"). Consensus did not agree with your argument. And if I violated WP:3RRR as you suggested which is wrong then why did you not report me for 3rr violation instead of filing a RFC against me. It's just because of problems like this that all SPA's should be banned from editing Smart. PLease stop insulting me on my talk page.

Note: User:Mael-Num has been posting insulting messages questioning my doctorate which is a violation of WP:NPA and also allegations of witch hunting which can be taken as a threat against me as seen by this edit [19] made on my talk page.Kerr avon 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kerr avon 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironic that you cite my quoting Wiki regulations as proof that I am a sock-puppet, while at the same time quoting Wiki regulations. I guess we're all sock-puppets. By your own admission, I am sometimes Pro-Smart, and sometimes Anti-Smart. Maybe I'm just pro-Neutrality? Spin it however you want. The consensus was clearly for the exclusion of the Coke machine story. [20]

And I never questioned your education (rather I acknowledged and appealed to it), nor did I threated a witch hunt (the point was that I am the subject of one, perpetuated by you...a point sorely lost on you). Stop making up stuff to complain about to the arbitrators here. No one likes a complainer, especially one who cries wolf. If you want to talk further, take it to personal pages. Mael-Num 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits show you to be a SPA, the wikipedia has millions of interesting articles and yet after one year of lying dormant you suddenly take a great interest in this article which is very strange. I will not respond to this thread further as your edits alone prove that you are a SPA which is a fact and as such arguing with you is pointless. All SPA's should be banned from editing the Smart article to stop this needless war.Kerr avon 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to look can see that I have edited more than just this one article. I don't need to justify my interests to anyone, and I resent your attempting to call them into question. By your own admission I became interested in the article later than most of the participants, and have participated in other articles before and since. That speaks for itself. I believe I've presented a clear picture to other interest parties that there may be another, alternate motive to your pushing for my being barred from participating in the Smart article. I further submit that other editors have stepped forward to state that they believe I am not a sock-puppet and that Kerr's position is held by himself alone. I urge any arbitrators to view the situation as it is and realize that by silencing any voices in the conversation, you ultimately make Wiki a poorer product. Mael-Num 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this was not so much 'convenient timing' and 'article sabotague' or anything of the like, but in fact two editors with varying opinion of relevance and notability. Kerr Avon, Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality. Mael-num, Kerr Avon seems to be an editor who, though perhaps polarized by troubles encountered in editing prior to your coming, has a more liberal view of the negative aspects of the subject's notability. I do not claim to have viewed your interactions in-depth enough to be considered completely knowledgable, however what I have seen seems to lend a clear idea that you are both assuming that the other is something they are not. I present to the arbitrators, with no offense meant to these two parties that I'm ultimately presenting the behaviors of, that it is more likely that Kerr Avon may have initally found himself 'warring' with other editors who may not have been entirely wanting to obey all the wikipedia rules. Mael-num came in after they were gone and, upon seeing his willingness to bring in all the liberally interpreted or 'cherry-picked' wikipedia rules to justify negative materials brought in, may have slowly come to a conclusion that Kerr Avon was not interested in an NPOV. I present that if they are up for consideration in these proceedings, as I know Mael-num has been mentioned, we consider an alternate view than the two presented by these two parties. This being that two editors, who arrive at a different conclusion as to what is neutral, might have come to feel that the other may be an enemy of neutrality. To the arbitrators, I say that this may not be a sign of deeper conspiracy, but rather a sign of possibly weary editors working a potentially contested article. To the editors, I would offer that it ideally should not matter if the other is driven by an ulterior motive. Assuming good faith, maintaining civility, and maintaining neutrality can only show to all your perspective so that consensus may judge an ideal between the two perspectives you have. Barring a 'wikipedia:kiss and make up' policy, might I suggest that you each, despite having understandable viewpoints, might do best to cool off in regards to each other and try to view the other's activities from a different perspective. By the by, if my light-hearted nature in this otherwise serious presentation caused offense, then I would like to offer my apologies in advance. 68.9.109.99 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Well said, and duly noted. "Weary" is probably a more keen insight than you realize. Mael-Num 08:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that Mael-num and Kerr Avon are both good guys. I believe you both have the same goal here which is making a superior article. I also assert that differences of opinion are generally good and mean a superior article. Therefore, we need both of you and both of you guys need each other because most of us have the same goal which is improving the article. So I'll just shackle your two legs together until you learn to work together. ^{(note: that is a joke and not a threat)} Have fun, Bill Huffman 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kerr never was a good editor. In fact, the majority of his edits were reversed because they were nothing more than pov-pushing to the max. Looking up his diffs on the Derek Smart wiki proves thus. And speaking of which, I thought you said that you had no interest in the Derek Smart article. Why are you still here? And why do you care whether it is a good article or not? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I've also stated that after Jeff's rewrite I became hopeful that improving the article might be possible despite the disruptive WP:SPA account activities. I have a very deep seated and fervent respect for knowledge. This explains both my great respect for Wikipedia and my hobby of fighting academic fraud. That is why I care that it is a good article. Thank you, Bill Huffman 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right. Pull the other one. Its got bells. Wiki is now six years old. You only showed up here a short while ago and in the Wiki of a man you've harrassed and stalked for almost eleven years. And we're expected to believe that nonsense? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that discussion is only useful here when it pertains to the proposed findings. Any debate outside of that realm may best be responded to with an explanation that the talk has gone outside the intended scope of this workshop, and thus is best directed in talk pages or elsewhere, if the parties involved still feel that it needs to happen. 68.9.109.99 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Supreme_Cmdr please assume good faith with regard to Huffman. If he has been stalking Smart then why has not Smart sued him as it is a criminal offense? Since you are so knowledgable regarding Smart, please clarify.Kerr avon 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree in part. However, most of the sources are reliable and neutral. The only ones I feel raise concerns are the werewolves link (neutrality), and the UseNET posts (reliability). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the Committee can offer a more definitive decision w/regard to the Werewolves link. That is, can articles about living persons include links to external sites that feature commentary extremely critical of the subject, or to be more precise websites solely devoted to criticism of the subject? A decision on this matter would be helpful as it would have ramifications for other articles at Wikipedia. For instance, the article on Uwe Boll features as an external link www.bollbashers.com. The article on Jerry Falwell features a link to ihatepatrobertson.com. --Beaker342 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

and John_Gray_(U.S._author) features a link to The Rebuttal From Uranus Bill Huffman 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You would hope that because it would further fuel your sick obsession with Derek Smart. Its not enough that you have been banned from every single forum that he posts at because you go there, but you've now found Wiki to be another source to channel your hate and stalking activities on him. Especially since you think I'm him. The examples you give are completely different to your libelous website. Your site would open Wiki to a lawsuit and if your link were allowed, they know that all it would take is one single email from Smart to the Wiki owners and the link would be gone. Only a complete fool or someone who shares your hatred and obsession for this person, would regard your site as anything other than a primarily libelous, fraudulent and POV website. It is far easier to sue Wiki, a corporate entity, than it is to sue an inconsequential individual like you. So it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom would be stupid enough to allow the link to your site in that Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very close to beng a legal threat, claiming libel. I'd highly advise you to rescind this statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no wikipedia policy which does not permit the werewolves site to be used as a external link in the Derek Smart article. The werewolves site is heavily cross referenced as evidenced by a google search for "derek smart" [21], where it is at third place.Kerr avon 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No evidence of legal threats

3) In spite of concerns raised in statements on the original request for arbitration, the committee finds no legal threats have been made by any of the parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Does the committee then interpret incorrect, or even abusive citings of BLP as not being a legal threat? e.g. if a user makes an edit, and I remove without discussion and say only, this is not acceptable per WP:BLP, and upon questioning by the party, cite the WP:BLP protection from defamatory statements, is that not a legal threat (it's a perfectly clear implication that I just said that the edit you made was defamatory, otherwise it would not fall under the BLP jurisdiction). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the committee as a whole, it is my own view that the legal threats we proscribe are exactly that: overt statements or tacit implications that an editor will be sued in a court of law. There is nothing wrong with a reasoned discussion regarding whether or not a portion of an article is possibly libellous. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I am referring to non-reasoned discussion, especially by editors who do not understand the concept of libel or fair comment. Perhaps my example was not good enough, basically what I'm saying is that in the Derek Smart article, the accusations of defamation violations of BLP were decidedly not made in good faith, and are tantamount to legal threats. Though nobody said "I'm going to sue", what they did say is "Anything negative is libel", which carries with it the (false) implication that it would be actionable in court. At the very least this is extremely disruptive, at the most it is a legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I request that the findings here be reconsidered based on the Supreme_Cmdr post above. [22] Thank you, Bill Huffman 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, as per the above proposed finding, it is very close to constituting a claim of libel and a threat to sue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I see what you two are talking about (Supreme_Cmdr is clearly on the offensive above), I think what the arbitration committee members are saying is that there is a difference between saying "This is libellous" and "I'm going to sue you for libel". Unless the editor does the latter, it's not really a clear case that he's done anything wrong. Mael-Num 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've just added some diffs to the evidence page pertaining to this. Just let me know if more documentation is required. Ehheh 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "personal attacks" finding since it was not part of the original request. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr incivil

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk • contribs) often resorts to personal attacks (a notorious Smart stalker like you) and disregards Wikipedia's civility policy ([23]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

I placed a related finding on the proposed decision page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not a personal attack. It is a fact. A fact that has been echoed all over the net, including Usenet, forums, popular sites (e.g. this article) etc. I was simply astonished to find that this Bill Huffman person was now an editor on the Derek Smart Wiki page and thus pointed out his reputation. This guy has stalked Smart online and offline. This is not conjecture or libel, it is a fact. The end result was a kid (aka LouisJM) instigated by Huffman got involved with the cops, had a restraining order filed against, Smart moved homes etc. My comment about Bill Huffman is no more or less severe that that which he has levied against me. Apart from that, since he showed up, these are his contributions to Wiki. The majority of his posts are based on Derek Smart. Thats his obsession. The attempt at posting on other similar articles is just a false one in order to not be accused of violating WP:SPA; unlike Usenet and forums where no such rule exists. And if my comment was a personal attack, then he too has levied a personal attack against myself and others because accusing someone of being WP:SPA without proof etc also violates WP:CIVIL. There many instances where has accused me of being [User:WarHawkSP] and vice versa. He has even accused myself and others of being Derek Smart himself.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Supreme_Cmdr's above paragraph[24] should be archived on Wikimedia as potentially the epitome of the violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Although it is probably technically a violation of Wikipedia policy to not delete it, I believe that the rich irony of where Supreme_Cmdr decided to post it makes it far too enjoyable for anyone (except perhaps Supreme_Cmdr) to even consider deleting it. BTW Mr. Smart, I really don't hate you. I do dislike claims to bogus academic credentials. I admit that I find your self-destructive behavior and creative attempts at manipulationing reality to be very amusing but I really don't hate you. Take care, Bill Huffman 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch out Bill Huffman, that's tantamount to your own WP:CIVIL violation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I would like to note though that Supreme_Cmdr's false accusations against me are hard to ignore completely. I have never stalked the man. I knew about Mr. Smart's antics here many months ago yet I didn't post anything earlier and I've never attempted to edit the Derek Smart article, I've only had a Wikipedia account for a couple months, or so yet he makes the ridiculous claim that I hate him that I'm stalking him and trying to destroy his wonderful reputation. It is very hard for me to ignore vicious lies that are being said about me. I suspect that failing would be true for most people. Although I sincerely do thank you for the reminder and will try harder in the future. Bill Huffman 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Supreme Cmdr does not appear to have a clear understanding of the law as it pertains to libel, and in my opinion she has an enthusiasm for the subject matter which sometimes clouds her judgment, but I don't think that on the whole she is being any less civil than the people complaining about her, particularly Bill Huffmann. Bill Huffmann (if this is, in fact, the same Bill Huffmann, which is unproven), on the other hand, has a long and apparently well-documented 1 history of what can only be called "stalking" concerning Derek Smart. I think a certain amount of incivility in response to such a person is, if lamentable, at least understandable. I am not condoning any excesses by Supreme Cmdr: I am simply saying that Supreme Cmdr is certainly not the only person to have stepped over that line. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

Sir, I believe that stalking is a crime and I find it highly insulting and disturbing that Supreme_Cmdr's statements seem to have convinced you that I've committed a crime. Please point at some real evidence that I have ever stalked Mr. Smart. All you pointed at is the fabrications perpetrated by Supreme_Cmdr. More relevantly please point at Wikipedia text that demonstrates that I've violated WP:CIVIL worse than Supreme_Cmdr. Thank you, Bill Huffman 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Real life stalking is a crime and the laws of online stalking are similar. When you spend eleven years following someone around and to places (forums) where you were never at prior to knowing about that person, it is called stalking. There is a clear pattern of this behaviour and much has already been written about you in various forums, blogs and elsewhere that you are a Derek Smart stalker. If you don't like it, stop doing it. Since you can no longer post at places where he goes, you have now found his Wiki to do the same darn thing you did on Usenet and in those forums where you have been banned and/or not tolerated. How many times have you not been banned from following him around the Net?

A quick visit to Google to look up online stalking quickly reveals that your pattern of following Derek Smart around the Net fits the bill of being a stalker. Further, that kid (louisJM) said in a police report (which I'm sure is probably public record) that you instigated him to follow Derek Smart around his neighborhood. Of course once the cops were involved, he admitted that he made up the whole thing about a chance encounter. That alone, after the cops went to his house, had Derek Smart move his family out of that address. Why would someone need to move after realizing that not only had he run into an online detractor in real life, but also by a kid known to be racist, a potent liar who talked about owning guns etc? If Smart didn't see that as a real threat, why were the police involved, a restraining order filed, Smart relocate etc? Any fool with access to Google can search the Usenet groups and see all this information and much more more on there. And you're worried about being called a stalker? Gimme a break.

This is all well documented. Yet, you want your new Wiki friends to see you as someone other than the habitual stalker of Derek Smart.

Even your own supporters at one one point or another, turned against you. Here is one such example of how you just post things and expect people to accept it as fact.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Visiting the same public website forum as Mr. Smart is NOT stalking. I never asked Louis to follow you around and Louis never followed you around that I know of. You allegedly followed Louis around, that is what your link is to. Back when you called the police on Louis and posted the police report. I was not mentioned in the police report at all and Louis was not accused by the police of doing anything wrong. They told him something like Mr. Smart was a person that Louis should just stay away from to avoid any future potential problems. After Smart moved he published his new address on Usenet. This would seem to debunk your claim that he moved because he was afraid that Louis would visit his apartment. Like almost always, the sources that you point at do not support your false accusations. Please stop your violations of WP:NPA. Thank you, Bill Huffman 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article ban unenforced

5) The article ban on Supreme Cmdr (talk • contribs) proved ineffective. Concerns about whether there was enough consensus for it were raised, and it is not being enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this finding accomplishes anything useful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended to confirm that the community has failed to deal with this situation on its own. Of course, that may already be obvious considering the existence of an ArbCom case. -- Steel 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with comments by Steel. My earlier comments, quoted accurately by Steel, were before I had read Wikipedia:Community sanction, which had been tagged historical. Also, WP:ADMIN, at that time, implied that Wikipedia:Community sanction was policy. I've since updated WP:ADMIN and tagged the Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log page as historical also. If Wikipedia:Community sanction was a policy, then I would suggest there probably would have been sufficient grounds. However, the confusion was that it apparently was being justified in terms of WP:BAN and this, in my reading of the policy, requires a higher level of consensus. Addhoc 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Huffman

1) Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently Bill Huffman, compiler of werewolves.org, a site devoted to criticism of Derek Smart [25]. He has not edited Derek Smart, but has been active on its talk page and in this arbitration case. The conflict between Bill Huffman and Derek Smart is longstanding [26] [27].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Thusfar, I find this to be accurate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is 100% accurate. It is the same Bill Huffman discussed here and his site here. He has been accused on numerous occasions of being an online stalker and harrasser of Derek Smart and banned from several forums for his behavior. And his supporters pushing to have his website added to the Wiki are pushing it for the same reason that he has such as site. To taint Derek Smart's reputation and to further extend the harrassment into a Wiki encyclopedia which is a pseudo-biography about this notable game developer. The majority of the edit waring on the Wiki are a direct result of this action. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Supreme_Cmdr, please refrain from your personal attacks against me. You seem to be trying to blame me for the Derek Smart article edit warring. It would seem that if that was your intent then you needed to propose it much earlier in this process as well as presenting the rational as to how I could be the cause of an edit war that has been going on for many months when I've only had a Wiki account for just a few months. Although I suggest instead that you try to convince the ArbCom that you can work with other editors rather than seemingly trying to exhibit the opposite. Bill Huffman 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not blaming you for edit waring. Please stop making baseless accusations against me. You came to Wiki because it is Derek Smart's page. You came there in an attempt to pov-push in the article and to have your - as some would say, libelous - site included in the Wiki. Here is a classic example of your mindset about Derek Smart. I quote:

"What can we do to make Mr. Smart appear more human and likeable?" Thank you for pointing out the utter frutility of such an idea. Trying to make Mr. Smart appear more likeable would obviously be a gross injustice to the accuracy of Wikipedia and I wish to thank you for nipping that silly idea in the bud before things got out of hand. Shame on all of us. Bill Huffman 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another example of your injecting defamatory and unsubstantiated material into the discussions in an attempt to influence other editors in much the same way you have a website devoted to Smart in an attempt to influence public opinion of him. I quote:

So it would not be just a comment on a web forum, so I think it would be a reliable source. It seems to support the commonly accepted view of Derek Smart within the gaming industry. I think that Cardinal2 has a good point that it may apply better to the "Online controversy" section since it seems to support the idea that Mr. Smart is better known for his controversial public persona rather than his game development. Bill Huffman 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And the edit waring that I have been accused of and for which other editors ganged up on me, had me blocked etc, is primarily related to my removal of the link to your site from the article. The only reason for editors fighting to have it included is because it is the single source of negative, non-factual and unsubstantiated material by you. I suspect that you appeared on this Wiki once one of your friends alerted you to the Wiki and the on going debate about the link. Since you got here, believing that I am Derek Smart has resulted in your repeated goading myself and WarhawkSP (who you also believe to be Derek Smart)

Once you showed up, you and other editors with whom I have been engaged in a bitter battle to keep the Derek Smart article clean and neutral, started devising all manner of foolishness in an attempt to not only intimidate me but also to continue ganging up on me. And here is another example of your collusion with other editors. What have you got to say in email about the article that can't be posted on your talk page where it originated? So, there is clearly a pattern of behavior here.

Instead of facing the task at hand, you editors are trying to intimidate me with all these silly games, accusing me of being someone else, trying to find out who I am etc. All of which clearly violate Wiki policy. Because I am regarded as a Derek Smart sympathizer, you and these editors continue to attack me because that is exactly the pattern of behavior you and your friends (probably some of these editors were there) did on Usenet that caused Smart to leave. Your belief that I am Smart is what has clearly motivated you and your friends to continue this foolishness and to focus on me instead of on the article.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Supreme_Cmdr did some creative editing to obscure the proper context of one quote that he provided. The context was that we were considering ways to soften the article to make Mr. Smart appear more human and likeable. I suggested possibly listing his marriage and children information but I was visciously attacked for suggesting this. Here's the diff [28] Bill Huffman 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The context that Bill Huffman presents here is the same context I took his original quoted post to be in. I don't take the idea of including relevant biographical details in someone's biography to be "stalking". With respect to some very important biographical details, the article is quite poor. For example, where was Smart born? Who knows? Certainly not someone who used Wikipedia as a source. Mael-Num 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I am also very interested in the use of Usenet cites as basis for this finding of fact. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not writing a sourced Wikipedia article. I am, in fact, doing original research. Fred Bauder 03:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that observation. In general, you are correct, usenet wouldn't be an appropriate source. If I were, say, writing a biography of Ronald Regan, I shouldn't cite Usenet as a source. If hypothetically Ronald Regan participated in a years-long Usenet discussion, and the biography cited archives of Regan's Usenet postings as evidence that such a discussion actually took place, then I would argue that not only would it be a valid source, it would be the best source available. Such is the case here. Mael-Num 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's try to restrain ourselves from using words like "stalker", Supreme Cmdr. Accurate or not, it carries strong emotional connotations, and that does not help your case. If User:Bill Huffman is the same Bill Huffman who maintains the "werewolves" site, this does demonstrate a years-long interest in, at the very least, publicizing negative stories about Derek Smart. This by itself is not particularly important to the matter at hand: being biased is not itself against Wikipedia policy. We all have biases. Of greater importance is the admission by Bill Huffman that he has deliberately baited Supreme Cmdr [29], and that, thus far, he is doing so by making personal attacks in the form of accusations made without evidence [30]. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 01:23Z

I don't see anything there which indicates that Bill Huffman admits that he is baiting Supreme Cmdr. Huffman says that his purpose was to notify SC of a discussion which might benefit of his comments. Later on, Huffman indicates that he expected a personal attack in SC from response. Given SC's behavioral history, I figure that most people who come into contact with Supreme Cmdr expect the same, including myself. Cardinal2 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Huffmann has repeatedly and relentlessly made personal attacks against Supreme Cmdr by making serious (for Wikipedia) accusations without evidence (e.g., being Derek Smart, being Warhawk/WarhawkSP, making legal threats, etc.), and has stated plainly that he did so with full knowledge that these attacks would provoke an uncivil response from Supreme Cmdr. I think that is a clear admission of premeditated disruption and uncivil behavior. (It does not, of course, excuse Supreme Cmdr's response, but I do think it ought to be considered a mitigating factor.) -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 02:42Z

Please explain how accusing SC of being Smart or of being a sockpuppet/puppetmaster is a personal attack. Also, do you have a diff of Huffman making a legal threat? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I deny making any legal threats. I too would be very interested in seeing a diff to what Bblackmoor is referring to. I also deny attacking Supreme_Cmdr to provoke uncivil behavior. If I want to see uncivil behavior directed against me from Supreme_Cmdr it is not necessary for me to do anything. I believe that is demonstrated by the fact that he was attacking me here on Wikipedia long before I ever had an account here. I already explained that I simply informed him that these discussions were occuring on this page. It is not true that I attacked him. Here is the same diff that I think that I linked too previously. (It is actually right below this, in my 02:03, 13 January 2007 post.) I believe it is clearly not an attack. [31] If you were referring to something else, I would appreciate a diff. Thank you, Bill Huffman 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that Huffman made "serious (for Wikipedia) accusations without evidence (e.g., being Derek Smart, being Warhawk/WarhawkSP, making legal threats, etc.)". I no more accused Huffman of making legal threats than I accused him of being Derek Smart. Please read with more care. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-16 03:11Z

Sorry for misunderstanding. I assume then that since you made your statement the evidence for those accusations has been pointed out to you and that the attack you alleged I made against Supreme_Cmdr was in fact the diff I referenced. [32] Sincerely, Bill Huffman 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not able to decipher what you mean by that, but it doesn't matter. I have said what I think needed to be said on the subject of the RfA, and so far I have not seen any reason to amend it. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-16 03:57Z

Just so readers don't wonder if I've perhaps modified my post in response to your post, I believe that you intended this to be in a thread that Thatcher131 removed from the near beginning of the talk page. Regards, Bill Huffman 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that comment is a response to the comment which immediately precedes it, just like this one. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-17 20:38Z

I informed him of this webpage so he could come here and post what he wanted. I admit to doing that. [33] My recollections is that shortly after my announcement to Supreme_Cmdr is when he first posted on these two pages. I have admitted many times that I'm the same Bill Huffman that maintains the Werewolves site that documents the Flame War Follies of one particular game developer. I believe that your characterization of calling this baiting to be misleading, however. I simply thought that ArbCom might find Supreme_Cmdr's direct input enlightening. I disagree with your implied assertion that I have violated Wikipedia policies by doing any of this. Of course, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'd appreciate it if you would please point out what Wikipedia policy you feel that I may have violated, assuming that you do feel that I have violated some policy. Thank you, Bill Huffman 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the discussion on this page regarding the apparent threats of a lawsuit made by Supreme_Cmdr. [34] Regards, Bill Huffman 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That claim has been addressed, and there is no evidence for it. [35] Please stop baiting Supreme Cmdr by making personal attacks against her without evidence. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 02:36Z

That you disagree with the evidence presented means neither that "there is no evidence for it" nor that citing the disputed evidence is a "personal attack." --ElKevbo 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is evidence, it has yet to be presented. What has been presented are accusations and supposition. Nothing more. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 02:48Z

I think it's the ArbCom's job to decide if the evidence presented is sufficient to support the charges or accusations, not ours. I'm sure that they'll take our opinions into consideration if they're supported by well-reasoned discussion but to state that no evidence has been presented is simply a judgement we're not empowered to make here. Let's let the ArbCom do what they were asked to do. --ElKevbo 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and harassment by Bill Huffman

1) Bill Huffman has repeatedly harassed Derek Smart both on and off Wikipedia. He has maintained a website devoted to criticism and ridicule of him and has used Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his abuse. See this post where he alludes to Smart's "abrasive behavior" and alleged "personality formation" "incapable of empathy or objective thinking".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Huffman started this behavior as far back as 1996 and is approaching eleven years since he has been harrassing Smart. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The great Flame War Follies didn't really start on Usenet until 1997. It has been over since about 2002. That works out to be closer to six years. However, if we count the year that you've been harassing me on Wikipedia when I wasn't even around then you have been harassing me for at least seven years as opposed to the six that I've been returning the favor. Cheers, Bill Huffman 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have harrassed Derek Smart way past the Usenet flamewars. Let's see. Gone Gold forum, Adrenaline Vault forum, Quarter-To-Three forum, Planetcrap forum, Voodoo Extreme forum....shall I go on? Most, if not all of those happened way after 2002 and as recently as last year. While you may be trying to deflect the argument and try to base it on the flame war, you have clearly harrassed and stalked him for almost eleven years. And your appearance on his now active Wiki page is just another extension of that. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not harass Derek Smart on those forums. As a matter of fact if I remember correctly I only visited the Planetcrap forum and the Voodoo Extreme forum after someone informed me that Dr. Smart was there writing attack pieces against me, calling me a racist and a criminal cyber stalker. I did not get an account on Wikipedia to harass anyone. If I was so anxious to harass you or Derek Smart here on Wikipedia then why did I find out about the Derek Smart article in June 2006 [36] yet not create a Wikipedia account until November 2, 2006 [37], not post anything on talk:Derek_Smart until November 9, 2006 [38] and never try to post anything on the Derek Smart article? Bill Huffman 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The relatively short time that I've been editting Wikipedia I have tried to be a responsible editor. I would like to submit as evidence to the truth of this a statement made by Thatcher131 after he read many of my contributions to Wikipedia [39]. Thank you, Bill Huffman 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was a Derek Smart antagonist in his Usenet Flame War Follies. The primary intent of the Werewolves website is to document the Usenet Flame War Follies rather than harassing anyone. My main interest in the flame war was Dr. Smart's academic claims. I believe that a fair reading of the flame war posts would show that Dr. Smart was far more insulting, abusive, and harrassing of me than I ever was of Dr. Smart. I do not feel that I am using Wikipedia to continue harassing Dr. Smart. My initial intent when editting the talk:Derek_Smart page was solely to try to correct some of the untruths that Dr. Smart was using to heap abuse, harrassment, and ridicule upon me for the past year when I didn't even have a Wikipedia account. for example, Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive1#Bill_Huffman. After Jeff's rewrite I became hopeful that perhaps real progress could be made and my focus broadened some. The "personality formation" comment in my post that was linked to was referring to reading that I had done which in turn applied to my statement that I thought that I understood. It was not meant to apply specifically to anyone else. Regarding my prediction of how Supreme_Cmdr would respond, I had generally characterized his expected response as purely subjective. My current opinion is that this general characterization of his response proved to be an accurate prediction. I'm open to other interpretations though.

I truly have a great respect for Wikipedia and appreciate the gift of knowledge that Wikipedia has provided me. I simply wanted to give something back so I created an editting account. It's really that simple. If the other editors or ArbCom feel that my contributions to talk:Derek_Smart have not been positive then I will happily restict my contributions to elsewhere. Have fun, Bill Huffman 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personally, I firstly would rather assume that this is not germane for our purposes, as despite what some people may suspect, there has been no conclusive evidence that Derek Smart is on wiki. It would seem detrimental if we were to accidentally shoehorn in yet more discussion about who might or might not be editing behind the wikipedia user names. As such I think findings of what may have happened 'on and off wikipedia' could not hold much weight, and that it would potentially call for speculation outside of the realm of pertinence. I also find it to be false that, by the example in this proposal, Bill Huffman had alleged any personality formations that Derek Smart may have. He claimed to be fascinated in the subject, but then went on to say he read a book about personality formations (not about Derek Smart or about Derek Smart's personality formation) and states a belief that he understands that book. To say that we can then or are intended to divine the book, the formation, and most importantly an intention to prove what he beleives, which would be needed to form a legal allegation by Bill Huffman seems quite incorrect. The idea that he was giving his personal perspective so that we may better understand the basis of his opinions seems far more correct. I do agree that he maintains a website which criticizes and ridicules Derek Smart (be it truthful or not, it still seems to be ridicule), however I feel that a finding of him using wikipedia to further an agenda of abuse would be incorrect. There seems to be an understanding with those related to the subject of an article that you are allowed to give opinions, but you cannot directly edit. I have not known the user to violate this understanding, as such I beleive the user may be trying to use wikipedia as intended, and not as a vehicle for abuse. Though he may not be objective toward the subject of the article, I propose that for our purposes this fact should be understood. I feel that this is why, ideally, he should not edit the article, which he does not appear to. A finding that he is abusive while working to avoid directly editing the article, and working to give wikipedia editors his insights, seems to work against apparent good faith efforts. Not all beliefs are popular, after all. I feel that it is not for wikipedia to pass judgement, either on popular or unpopular opinion. In the example, even, about Bill Huffman's allusion to Derek Smarts thinking, he does not seem to be offering an unqualified fact, only an opinion. He clearly qualified his statement: 'I believe that Mr. Smart is psychologically incapable of empathy or objective thinking', he wasn't trying to push fact, merely letting editors know his opinion and state of mind. As my final point seemed to be unclear, I'm not sure that we can tie his statement of incapability of empathy or objective thinking as a personality formation. Moreover I feel that the wording with which he goes about such a statement seems to suggest intentions outside of that scope (my interpretation being that he is explaining his state of mind rather than trying to support an allegation with proof). 68.9.109.99 21:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Not being one to make accusations, but until this post, I hadn't paid any attention to your posts, but the one above just reeks of one of the editors here (or Huffman himself) posting anon. At any rate, it is quite clear that you have no clue what you're talking about. Here is a link to a page which was recently taken down and in which Huffman claimed that Smart had NPD. It is not big secret to anyone on the Net who knows Smart, that Huffman has, for eleven plus years, harrassed Derek Smart on the net. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Very small point, but it has not been "taken down". A direct link ([40]), as of this note, is available. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I had to use the way back machine to locate it is because it is no longer linked to on the front page where it was. So he removed the link but still has the file on his server. Thanks for pointing that out. Your emphasis on the word "taken down" seems to indicate that you foolishly assume that I was refering to something else. Since you, Huffman and other other editors who wish to taint and ignore policy the Wiki are in cahoots, let me be the first to say that you are wrong again. Huffman himself said that he had cleaned up the page based on my pointing out his libelous NPD accusations. So when I said "taken down", it was in fact done, but by him. Nice try though. This is so pathetic. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I sadly don't have much time to search, so if I might ask directly. Bill Huffman, is it true that Supreme_Cmdr pointed out this article, or accusations tantamount to the statements this article makes, possibly mentioned that it could be libelous, and you chose to take it down? May I also say, nuggetboy's comment doesn't seem to imply to me that he is referring to something else. In fact the emphasis seemed to me to refute, on technicality, the wording of the statement as opposed to perhaps 'link-locked' or maybe 'archived' (which would explain the qualification by nuggetboy that is is a 'very small point'). If I'm missing something however, my apologies. 68.9.109.99 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

I didn't take it down because Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawk called it libelous. I suspect that the statute of limitations for filing any libel suit has run out on the werewolves site a very long time ago anyway so even a trivial harassment lawsuit probably wouldn't get far. I took it down because reading some of the history of the talk:DerekSmart page it seemed to be what bothered him the most. So I took it down to try to appease and make it more palatable. Regards, Bill Huffman 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. 68.9.109.99 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Don't confuse harrassment with libel. While you are clearly guilty of committing both against Derek Smart, he can bring suit for either. There is no statute of limitations on harrassment; which, like stalking, is a criminal act. While the statute of limitations for libel in California is one year, I don't know what it is in Florida, but various states have different statutes. Apart from that, with a good attorney, he could toll it or have it reinstated if dismissed at first. Especially if he never visits your site. Given the many links on your site he could very well sue for any one page and have the same effect as suing for the whole site. He could also sue the host of the site. Apart from that, you have posted potentially libelous material all over the Net. With a good attorney, they could very well just pick one and sue you for that. I suspect that any such suit, if successful, would lead to the final closure of your website and in a more definitive fashion than his previous attempts. While I'm quite sure that you are aware of the harm that you are causing this person, the fact that you are smug about it says a lot about you. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably an even smaller point, links to that file were deleted so there's no longer a way to get to it from the rest of the website. I just forgot to delete the actual file. Regards, Bill Huffman 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's alright to make your opinions known Supreme_Cmdr, I don't feel accused. I can say honestly that I am not posting for anyone else, and I am not an editor here on the wiki, but sadly I cannot prove so. As to your statement, though this would only apply to the 'off wiki' version, which I still beleive is not germane, I would like to point out that the link you point to is also stating opinion. "What makes the most sense to me is narcassistic personality disorder." is different than saying 'This person has been proven to have a personality disorder' as the first is a statement of opinion. The next sentence, we might see by the link, seems even more clear that it is a statement of opinion. With that said, this is not to refute that his website is meant to ridicule the subject of the wikipedia article we're in arbitration about. Only that having a website which posts critical material should not also equal that person having violated rules against harassment here on wikipedia unless that one person has actively harassed the other person while on wiki. 68.9.109.99 passerby

[edit] Outside comment

1) The doings here have been a source of comment on Gamers forums. From Quartertothree.com from the thread "Wikipedia": "check out the Derek Smart page", "Smart's finest hour", "one of the reasons he got the boot", [41], "stalker supreme", [42]. From another thread "Derek was actually pretty well-behaved around here until the stalkerati showed up and started prodding him."

btw, that DennyA person referenced in the second link about is none other than Denny Atkin, one of the most prolific gaming industry writers and reviews. He writes for CGW, CGM and a wealth of other non-industry related magazines. He is not the only industry person who knows about Huffman and his actions against Smart. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Concur. Realize also that that third one (re: "stalkerati") also goes on to say, "Alas, there was a banning incident followed by an apparently attempt to reregister as someone else that resulted in him being permabanned." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all by taking forum post's we must be aware of their inherent unreliability. Which is why they are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. However there is no doubt that the wiki edit wars regarding Smart have been disuccsed on various fora including Smart's own 3000ad, the principle reason is that many people perceive supreme_cmdr to be derek smart himself and that this wiki edit war to be a extension of the infamous flame wars which ran for several years and which only died out when smart voluntrarily ceased posting. Regarding this article i wish to likewise state that this edit war will never cease until either Supreme_cmdr is banned or he voluntrarily removes himself from the edit war.

Regarding Huffman, one cannot technically classify him as a stalker, if as Supreme_Cmdr says that he is a stalker then why on earth has Smart not taken legal action against huffman and either sued him or have him locked behind bars. Since Supreme_Cmdr is so knowledgable regarding Smart it would be very interesting to hear why Smart has not taken any action against huffman's allged stalking. Stalking is a serious offense and if Smart had genuine grounds to sue huffman as alleged by Supreme_Cmdr then huffman should have been suued by now.

Huffman appears to have a bias against Smart mainly with regard to Smart's alleged Ph.D claim, which Smart has never provided any substantaited information regarding the genuineness of his claim and Smart's attitude in general. Huffman has so far not edited to Smart article except the talk page. When considering Supreme_Cmdr's allegations against huffman one has to take into consideration that Huffman has a extensive knowledge regarding Smart's flame war postings and take in to consideration the possibility that Supreme_Cmdr wants huffman censored to prevent commentrary critical of Smart being allowed into the wiki.Kerr avon 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Derek Smart

1) Derek Smart is the successful developer of a family of PC games. In his on-line activities he is easily provoked. interview in Computer Gaming World. On the forums on his gaming website he goes by the handle "Supreme Cmdr". "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". "Slight negative bias". He is dismissive with respect to the Wikipedia article on him. Registration and login is necessary to view forum links.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Just for the record. When I registered in Wiki using Supreme Commander, I did so in order to prevent other aliases from doing so and impersonating Derek Smart as many have done on several boards. I sent him email and offered to give him the account but he declined. I mention it here (search for ""declined"") and in another thread in the archives. He has stated to me in email and clearly on his website forums that he has no interest in Wiki seeing that his article is becoming a version of the Usenet flamewar which he says he has put past him many years ago. I am not Derek Smart and I would be willing to prove it to any arbitrator who inquries thus. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be functioning as a surrogate. Fred Bauder 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. One must also take into consideration the fact that Derek Smart himself has claimed in his own 3000ad forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad". [43]Kerr avon 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. Also, as to Kerr Avon's link above. Kerr Avon, the statement seems to be that he is 'this close' to starting said conflict, which implies that he had not chosen to do so, at least at the time of that writing. Your statement may inadvertantly be making implications ('he is going to start...' as opposed to 'he was tempted to start...') that do not seem to be supported by the link you've shown. 68.9.109.99 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Supreme_Cmdr has mentioned that Smart has no interest in this wiki. However the above message [44] posted by Smart clearly shows that he is interested in the wiki article namely by intending to start a "wiki jihad" and he mentions that he is going to work on the "fatwah". That was the main reason for highlighting the above post.Kerr avon 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, I only wanted to qualify that I am not sure a statement of temptation necessarily means a statement of intention. 68.9.109.99 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Well when Derek Smart who is famous for his combativeness and vitriolic defense of himself says he is going to start a "wiki jihad", it should be taken very seriously indeed. Anyway rather than editing anonymously why dont you get a account and join us.Kerr avon 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you don’t have to agree that it is not necessarily a statement of intention, if you don’t wish to! As to the invitation, I thank you kindly. :) But I’m actually a bit more busy than my long-winded posts would seem to indicate, so I’m not sure that, at this time, it would be worth the effort. 68.9.109.99 13:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) passerby

Here is another example of how popular Smart's wiki edit warring has become[45]. Kerr avon 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ok, Derek Smart is a successful businessman, however this would be a content decision, instead of a finding of fact. Regarding Fred's personal opinions about Derek Smart, this is completely outside the remit of ArbCom. Addhoc 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not writing a Wikipedia article. Just trying to figure out what's going on. That is why the finding is so bland. Fred Bauder 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, 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.

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I was going to propose a similar remedy. Something like this will be necessary to keep disruption to a minimum. -- Steel 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, with a modification: Every time he releases a new game this will become a battleground again. Can we institute a clause saying "at the discretion of the ArbCom, this period may be reinstituted on the article at any time for a period of 1 month, following a request from ..." (I'm not sure whether to fill ... in with "any administrator", or "Any editor") ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea as an extension to this one. Having not been through ArbCom before, I don't know whether I just propose it or what. Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP have shown that they are disruptive SPA's, but I don't know that banning the accounts will have any effect at all. How about if, as an extension to the proposal above, we make it a matter of consequence that if an SPA is being disruptive to the article, they can easily be banned, without due process, from editing the article, but not the talk page of the article. That would allow Supreme Cmdr, or any new SPA's that come along, to continue to contribute in a moderated way, through the talk page, so that impartial editors can incorporate and evaluate their feedback.--Jeff 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An advantage of Jeff's suggestion is that it bypasses the gray area of what constitutes a revert. Bill Huffman 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Wikipedia editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would support an additional sentence along the lines of "users who have been involved in editing the Derek Smart article should be willing to accept and follow the consensus of the wider community", in the event that the wider community's decision on a couple of issues (the reliability of the warewolves site and whether it's acceptable to piece together Usenet forum posts and use them as references) goes against what some users have been edit warring with Supreme Cmdr & co over (which in my opinion is a distinct possibility). -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Steel359, it should be up to the community to decide the admissability of the site and especially the usenet posts, as the posts will form a precedent for similar events. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that we could get it right without such specific language. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a cop-out. As stated in principle 3 and 5, we need to be well sourced and respectful of BLP. However, as stated in principle 4, there is no way to do so with consensus. Whoever that comes in and cleans it up will be left with unfortunate decisions that will be disagreed with. This course of action will be inviting future edit wars. Another possibility, even worse in my opinion, is that the 10% of the internet that are supporters of Mr. Smart will be overwhelmed, and BLP will be erroded. -12.22.58.56 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these observations. There must be another solution to this problem. Mael-Num 10:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr banned for one year

3) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has a long history of disruptive editing and personal attacks on Derek Smart, is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's a throwaway account so there is little point banning it. One year is too long. I would support a 14 day ban due to personal attacks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he has already been banned from the article. Is this concurrent or sequential, or is this a ban from the entire project? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a ban from the entire site. That article ban never really got off the ground. It might be worth gathering together some information for the evidence page and propose a finding of fact about it. I'll get on it shortly. -- Steel 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, concur. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has already been blocked 8 times for a total of 41 days, and continued to edit war and attack other editors, so there is little reason to suspect that a 14 day ban would convince him to cool down. I agree that banning a single account would do little to remedy the problem, since there are so many sockpuppets floating around. The remedy must deal with the SPAs, not just Supreme Cmdr. --Beaker342 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ban me for what? That is exactly what they have been doing. All my bans have been as a result of 3RR traps in my attempt at removing pov pushing material. Anyone reading my block log can see that quite clearly. And if the admins had actually looked at the material instead of blocking me, I wouldn't have been blocked at all because at the end of the day, none of the materials were allowed to stand. Why? Because I was right and the whole 3RR issue just demonstrates yet another flaw in the Wiki rules of editing. Everyone knows that any group of people acting in concern, can get someone blocked and/or banned. You just have to know how to work the system. And since I stand alone (except maybe for WarhawkSP and a few remaining editors) in my quest, it is easier to point to a block log as proof that I am disruptive, when in fact I clearly am not. Is it surprising then that the same people calling for my ban and block are the same people I am in dispute with over their pov pushing activities on the Wiki page? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Supreme_Cmdr is a WP:SPA account. Banning for a year would only encourage new sockpuppet accounts. The Supreme_Cmdr account seems to be his favorite account. I suggest that the WarHawk accounts be permanently banned but let him use the Supreme_Cmdr account to try an minimize his disruptive sockpuppet activity. Bill Huffman 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Supreme_Cmdr is a SPA who has repeatedly caused edit wars regarding Derek Smart. The account should be banned and the derek smart article should remain under permanent semi protection to prevent abuse by anonymous IP addresses.Kerr avon 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I disagree with a 14-day ban for the same reasons that Beaker342 has stated. As his block log indicates [46], he has been blocked several times, sometimes within days after the previous one has expired. In addition, the most recent block lasted 14 days, the same length that is being suggested by The Uninvited. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that another 14-day ban would be an effective solution. If anything, I think that if Supreme Cmdr sees that he can get through the final step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process with a penalty that is no more severe than what he has experienced before, it will only encourage him to continue, or even step up, the incivil behavior which has been cited already by multiple other users. Cardinal2 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WarHawkSP blocked indefinitely

4) Per #Transparency in editing, WarHawkSP (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) along with his previous account WarHawk (talk • contribs), whose general conduct and editing habits mirror those of Supreme Cmdr (talk • contribs), is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe that this is necessary or useful in light of the proscription on reverts by single-purpose accounts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both useful and necessary since the account is being used to evade blocks, launch personal attacks and give the impression that Supreme Cmdr has more support than he actually does. Your current limitation on reverts proposal does nothing to end such activities on the talk page. -- Steel 10:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They already did a check and showed that WarHawkSP and I are two different editors. They just want to get rid of both of us in one fell swoop so that they can remain unopposed in their pov pushing editing of the Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The IP check did not show that, the IP check showed that it is inconclusive as to whether or not you are the same editor, but it did not prove either your "guilt or innocense"⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur Bill Huffman 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur Kerr avon 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I stopped caring a long time ago about this pointless debate. I'm just sitting back waiting for the arbitrators decision. These other editors are trying to get anyone who opposes them, banned from editing the article. This is what others do here on Wiki. They gang up on you and get you banned. I trust that ArbCom has seen this all too well and are quite aware of how these things go. The bottom line is that the Derek Smart page should be free of pov-pushing and devoid of any material that fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL. That is all there is to it really. WarHawkSP 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I see a lot of accusations that Supreme Cmdr is a sockpuppet, or that Supreme Cmdr and Warhawk et al are the same editor. I have seen no evidence to support these accusations. Verifiable proof should be provided, or the accusations should be deleted. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 05:22Z

I support your right to an opinion, but so far all of your comments on this particular situation have been off base and seem to be made from a stance where you are not really informed. I don't know though pal, I read your user page and on it you say "The problem with Wikipedia is that there is no editorial oversight: in other words, "anyone can edit". What this means is that anyone who wants their personal opinion or political agenda given the veneer of authenticity has only to outlast anyone who disagrees."

I agree whole heartedly with what you say there and want to point out to you that the situation with Supreme Cmdr (and his meat/sock-puppets WarhawkSP and IP address edits) is exactly the situation which you claim to despise on your user page. It just doesn't seem to me your opinion on the Derek Smart article is consistent with your stated opinions about legitimacy on Wikipedia. Dismissing all else, surely you can agree that Supreme Cmdr is a single purpose account with absolutely no interest in any non-Derek Smart related article. Aren't these the types of editors you most despise? The people that have agendas and a desire to taint an article?

I'll acknowledge there are certain editors that have an axe to grind, but there are far more editors, like myself, who want the article to be classy and appropriate for Wikipedia.. And that includes acknowledging Smart's reason for notability; his controversial nature, in a way that is appropriately and reliably sourced. I'm offended by your blanket statements made thus far, about how all of the editors should be banned. If you truly were able to familiarize yourself fully with the history of the article and the parties involved, it would surely prove those statements false.--Jeff 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a case of one editor POV-pushing. This is worse: a case of several editors with an obvious vendetta (I do not pretend to understand why, nor do I care), and one opposing editor who has allowed the frustration of that battle to cloud her judgment. As for the rest, your opinion of me is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you have verifiable evidence that Supreme Cmdr, Warhawk, etc. are sock puppets, provide it. Ad hominem attacks against me do not support that assertion. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 06:57Z

Sorry, I don't know which editors are those you refer to as acting in a cabal of vendetta filled editors adversely affecting the article to contain mistruths. In this case, there are many neutral editors who edit multiple articles who support the inclusion of fact against single purpose accounts who don't want it to be included for rationale that is an obvious attempt to shape the content of the article... Something you hate, supposedly. The only notable editor who might actually hold a personal opinion on Smart, Bill Huffman, has removed himself from editing the article.--Jeff 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bblackmoor, though I disagree with your take on the issue here, I have always had a healthy respect for the arguments you have raised, here and back on the Derek Smart Talk page back when you were involved. However, your accusation that insufficient evidence has been provided that Warhawk is a sockpuppet of Supreme Cmdr is eniterely without merit. If you review the arguments that brought this case to ArbCom and the subsequent evidence provided, a number of editors provided a great deal of just such evidence. I'll quickly review them: 1) SC and WH are both SPAs with a sole interest in Smart. 2) Their editing styles and editing patterns are identicle. 3) Both have been extremely disruptive in their editing. 4) WH never appeared until right after SC was blocked for edit warring. WH subsequently picked up the argument right where SC left off. 5) Checkuser revealed that while each has a different ISP address, they both resolved to the same city, Ft. Lauderdale, where incidentally Mr. Smart resides. 6) This I noticed rather recently, but I'll throw it out there: SC and WH have never communicated to each other via user talk pages. It is odd that two users with such strong opinions would never communicate with one another about what to do about the article, or what dispute resolution to pursue. Given this evidence, it was not unreasonably concluded that they were puppets of the same editor, perhaps Mr. Smart himself. While 100% certain evidence has yet to come forward, it is certainly not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the two are sockpuppets of each other. In any case, ArbCom has never demanded 100% positive evidence, and rather settled that disruptive editors with identicle editing patterns may be treated as sockpuppets. --Beaker342 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that ArbCom does not appear to require actual proof of sockpuppetry. Personally, I find that reprehensible. I consider accusing someone of being a sock puppet without actual evidence (real evidence, not coincidence and assumption) to be a personal attack at least as damning as anything Supreme Cmdr is actually guilty of. I think it's wrong, and I won't condone it. And for what it's worth, I also do not think repeatedly banging the "sockpuppet" drum does anything to enhance the quality of the discussion. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 20:07Z

Then we differ as to what constitutes "real evidence." I think most would agree that #4 alone is a priori evidence of sock puppetry. In any case it doesn't matter because WH has yet to show up here in any serious capacity [knock on wood]. I'll add that accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having ulterior sinister motives does not advance the quality of the discourse either. --Beaker342 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears we do disagree. In my opinion, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is pretty much the worst attack one can make on a Wikipedia editor. It is essentially saying, "Your edits do not have value, and your voice should not be heard." Is that not, in fact, the end result of being declared a sock puppet? I think that such a statement should not be made unless there is genuine and irrefutable proof, and I think unsubstantiated claims of that nature should be dealt with as we would deal with any other personal attack. I am aware that I am in the minority on this issue. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 20:51Z

It certainly is a serious allegation, but it is not one that has been has arrived at flippantly. In any case, the case before ArbCom does not turn on whether WH is a sock/meat puppet. Both SC and WH have exhausted the community's patience with their edit warring, disregard for Wikipedia policy, and extreme incivility. The reason WH is a suspected sock puppet is because they have exhausted the community's patience while following the exact same MO. --Beaker342 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that using various anonymizing technques (proxies, tor routing, shells, not storing cookies, etc), it is possible to operate sock puppets that, when checked for sock puppetry by a typical Wiki admin, will fail those checks. I believe your threshold for evidence is too high and resembles CSI syndrome (expecting unreasonable evidence when sufficient circumstantial evidence exists to support claims). These evidences include unlikely happenchances like writing style, motives, IP addresses that route to Florida where Smart lives, never disagreeing with each other and timing; when one is banned the other one shows up mysteriously. But, as beaker mentioned, there are policies on meat puppets which have been violated. The reasons stated above are the reasons for meat puppet policy; sock puppets are not always possible to identify if the user implementing them is sufficiently resourceful.--Jeff 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, there was a RfCU done. The result was inconclusive meaning that it cannot be confirmed for sure that they are sockpuppets, but it cannot be proven that they are not. Don't confuse inconclusive as a result, with "not sockpuppets". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of "innocent until proven guilty". In my opinion, if there was an investigation, and the results of that investigation were inconclusive, there should be no further accusations of sockpuppetry unless new evidence comes to light. I too often have seen that accusation used as a tool to negate someone's arguments, because it is easier than responding to the arguments themselves. It's a form of ad hominem: a logical fallacy. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 21:59Z

There was no full-blown investigation by the community, only a RfCU. Had there been a full blown sock puppet investigation that came back inconclusive I might agree with you here. Unfortunately, your only argument seems to be that we can't be 100% sure that Warhawk is a sockpuppet. Besides the inconclusive RfCU, you don't offer any reasonable arguments for why the community should not treat Warhawk as a sockpuppet, such as an editing pattern that would give a reasonable editor pause before arriving at the conclusion of sockpupptery. Besides the inconclusive RfCu, there is no such evidence. The great preponderance of the evidence speaks against Warhawk, and is, to use a legal term, clear and convincing. --Beaker342 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr blocked indefinitely

5) Per #Transparency in editing, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. Further, Supreme Cmdr has violated a community ban on editing the article and harassed other editors on the article and its talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of whom? Supreme Cmdr is the main account, WarHawk is the sock. -- Steel 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They're all socks of each other. Since they're all abusive, if one is indefinitely blocked, all need to be indefinitely blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An indefblock on a sock doesn't automatically mean an indefblock on the puppetmaster. Usually the main account is blocked for some finite amount of time. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that but repeated personal attacks are blockworthy regardless of whether it's a sock or a main account. Each one of the socks has done something worthy of a block, so each should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that permanently blocking the Supreme_Cmdr will do nothing but encourage more sockpuppets. I believe that the sockpuppet behavior itself is very disruptive. Supreme_Cmdr is obviously his favorite account so I suggest that we leave this one and delete (block indefinitely?) WarHawk/WarHawkSP. Bill Huffman 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure about the confident statement that he is definitely a sock puppet. My interpretation of the check user was that he was the original account and WarHawk was a meat puppet. Also, its factually incorrect to say that he violated a community ban, it was a Wikipedia:Community sanction of very dubious legitimacy. Addhoc 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious legitimacy? It was unopposed completely, and no less than 3 completely uninvolved admins have supported both the ban and the block (Inshannee, pgk, and Redvers). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was unopposed. It was sanctioned by the same people who are tainting the Wiki and engaging in 3RR traps. And yes, Addhoc is not the only person who noted that the sanction was dubious. It is the same dubiousness that you and your ilk are trying to use to get me banned because that is the only way you are going to stand unopposed. Thats the nature of Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have brought up this concept of a "3RR trap" before. Can you explain how anyone other than yourself is responsible for you violating WP:3RR? No one forced your hand; you always had the choice to act within the limitations of policy, of which you were well aware. However, on multiple occasions, you deliberately disrespected Wikipedia community rules, knowing full well what you were doing. And then you have the gall to try to pass it off as if you were "trapped." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, there's possibly some confusion; I concur with the numbers you mention. For precisely this reason, it wasn't a legitimate community ban. Addhoc 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr

1) For legal threats and harassment of other editors, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See [47], [48], that were made only today. Telling someone that they'll have them arrested is harrassment - "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats", and it's a legal threat as well. Remember, bans run concurrently. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those examples [49] [50] show Supreme Cmdr making a threat against anyone, legal or otherwise. Nor does saying "when you post defamatory statements, you are at risk for being sued by the person you have defamed" (which is the closest Supreme Cmdr has come, as far as I know, to making a legal threat) constitute a threat. Telling someone who is poised to jump off a bridge that jumping off a bridge may result in a sudden stop is not a threat: at worst, it's a sarcastic observation on the manifest stupidity of human beings. Supreme Cmdr's "you are asking to get sued" comment might be considered "uncivil", and it definitely shows that she is not a lawyer, but it is most emphatically not a threat. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 00:23Z

I believe that BBlackmoor is correct concerning the lack of any legal threats made by Supreme_Cmdr. However, I think there is more than enough evidence on the charge that SC has harassed other editors, the most obvious example being Bill Huffman. One can argue all they want that Huffman's comments are meant to provoke a slight rise out of SC, but the responses are hardly proportional, from slandering his userpage to the ad nauseam accusations of stalking. I would cite examples here of other editors that SC has harassed, but others have already provided them. Cardinal2 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems relatively plain to me that Supreme Cmdr's alleged "harassing" behavior has been primarily a reaction to the behavior of people like (but not limited to) Bill Huffman. While I do not think being provoked beyond one's patience is a valid defense for certain actions, I do think it should be taken into consideration in a case like this one, which amounts to little more than a few editors bullying another editor with whom they disagree, and that editor lashing out in return. Should Supreme Cmdr be censured? Possibly. But I also think she's owed at least an apology for, among other things, being banned from editing an article in a manner quite contrary to established Wikipedia policies. Supreme Cmdr has been treated shamefully, in my opinion. It is little wonder that she has reacted as she has. Any censure of Supreme Cmdr should be accompanied by censures of several other editors, and possibly of a few administrators, as well. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 05:13Z

Supreme_Cmdr was constantly threatening and harassing other users long before Bill Huffman showed up. Adam 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If Supreme Cmdr has made threats, there has yet to be provided any evidence to support the accusation. If it happened, let her be duly chastised -- but only after it has been proven. An accusation does not become proof through frequent repetition. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 01:11Z

All of the following are from Aug '06 or previous. "You folks for some reason want to turn this Wiki into your public forum for misinformation and personal attacks." "The question is, do you want dsmart himself to get involved in this and draw attention from the masses of detractors and supporters and turn this into a pointless debate as Usenet once was? I don't know what you have at stake here nor am I going to hazard a guess as to your motivation but its becoming more and more curious to me." [[51]] "Posting about this non-issue in his Wiki is just another example of what most of you do, whereby you stalk him across the net and any opportunity that you find to harrass him is open season. Then when he responds, you all go up in arms like the whiny children." "Even an elementary and unexperienced programmer or reviewer will take one look at your statement and die laughing." "The detractors want it in because it suits their purpose. All it does is libel and character assassinate Smart. Nothing more. Nothing less." "Wrong! Since you folks want to further taint the integrity of Wiki and misuse its policies and guidelines..." "Nonsense. You've got it all wrong. How typical." "A common fool with two brain cells..." "If I violate the Wiki rules, ban me. If you ban me just because you don't like my edits, I will just come back with an anonymizer (which is what most seem to now be doing) and keep putting in edits. If you folks want to play grab ass over this, lets play." "They ALL know that, but choose to ignore it. Hence this debacle." [[52]]. Disclaimer: I did not look for any harassment from anyone besides Supreme_Cmdr. Disclaimer 2: If you accuse me of bias, you're probably right. Disclaimer 3: If what I have quoted above isn't necessarily harassment, it is certainly against AGF as well as a slew of other WP policies. In any case, I think I'll wash my hands of this whole business now. TwilightDragon 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC), Bypasser

[edit] Supreme_Cmdr blocked indefinitely from editing Derek Smart but allowed on Talk:Derek Smart

6) Supreme_Cmdr would be blocked indefinitely from editing the Derek Smart article, but would be allowed on Talk:Derek Smart. WarhawkSP would be banned indefinitely as a meat-puppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is my proposed solution that would usurp any banning of anyone. The Derek Smart article has many involved accounts that are of single purpose in nature. Edit history has shown that upon banning one of the SPA's, another SPA takes up the slack and point of view of the banned SPA. This includes periods of time where Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP were both banned; two IP addresses stepped in during that time. I don't feel that banning Supreme_Cmdr from Wikipedia will have any discernable effect, as another meat/sock puppet will undoubtedly simply appear.

Whereby Supreme_Cmdr represents one side and Bill Huffman represents the other, I would like to see a compromise solution enacted whereby the existing account, Supreme_Cmdr, would be allowed to contribute to the article through the article's talk page. This will allow him to participate in a manner similar to Huffman's self-imposed article ban. This will allow his input to be moderated by neutral editors who do not have the single purpose goal of editing the Derek Smart article for POV purposes.

I would like Supreme Cmdr to participate in the article as he is obviously an "expert" on Smart, but his actions and his point of view have justified removing him from the ability to edit the article.--Jeff 08:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on this. On one level, I think it is a valid solution to the edit warring problem. On another I think it falls short of solving the personal attacks and harassment problem. On a third level, I think it does absolutely nothing to solve any edit warring and harassment on other articles, such as Supreme Commander or Universal Combat. That being said, that's outside the scope of this ArbCom case, which applies only to the Derek Smart article and any other points brought up in the request, and should go no further. So in summary, I cannot support this indepentantly of a ban but I CAN support this CONCURRENTLY with a ban. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of harassment on either of those articles, nor in their Talk pages. I do see that Supreme Cmdr and a few other editors disagreed over which critics' reviews of Universal Combat should be considered reputable, and there is some back-and-forth concerning phrasing, but I think calling that an edit war is doing an injustice to the term. I don't see evidence of anything that couldn't be sorted out with some open discussion on the Talk page, and I don't see anything that I would necessarily construe as disruptive. If I have overlooked something on one of those two articles, please direct me to it. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 23:17Z

I did not say there was harassment on either of those articles or those talks. I see signs of brewing POV pushing on those articles, but that's neither here nor there, as I mentioned those articles are out of the scope of this case. I merely bring them up because this remedy does nothing to prevent future issues on those articles, and as Supreme Cmdr has already shown a modicum of interest in them, it's not unreasonable to assume that being banned from Derek Smart would result in him heading over there. Let me preemptively say right now, that I'm not suggesting that is the case, I'm merely presenting that as a possibility. The entire point is moot because the only article at issue here is Derek Smart, nothing else falls within the scope of this case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: you mentioned articles in which Supreme Cmdr has shown an editorial interest, but in which Supreme Cmdr has not (as far as I know) been overtly disruptive or acted counter to Wikipedia's general "be cool to each other" policy. It may or may not be moot, as you say, but at the least, I do not think it supports the case for action against Supreme Cmdr. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 00:48Z

Comment by others:

By Jeff's rationale, Supreme Cmdr should be barred from editing the Derek Smart article because when she is not editing it, other editors step forward to support a similar point of view, and that this makes them, Supreme Cmdr, or both, meat puppets or sock puppets. By this rationale, any number of editors of the Derek Smart page could be considered meat and/or sock puppets. For example, is it not strange that Bill Huffman participates in the Derek Smart Talk page, but none of the edits on that article have been made by that account? Using Jeff's logic, that would make one or more of the editors supporting Bill Huffman's point of view meat and/or sock puppets. To be clear: I have no reason to believe that Huffman, Supreme Cmdr, or anyone else is a sockpuppet. But if one is going to apply flawed logic to besmirch one editor, one ought to apply it to them all. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 14:23Z

We aren't team members. It's not like we're all running around on pitch wearing different color jerseys. I don't think anyone's declared themselves as "On Bill Huffman's side". I personally disagree with him on more than a few things (like the inclusion of werewolves as an external link).--Jeff 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All that you are demonstrating is that Huffman would be a more skilled puppeteer than Supreme Cmdr (and I do not think anyone will contest my observation that Huffman's online social skills are more refined than those of Supreme Cmdr). I maintain that accusations of puppeeteering should be summarily deleted if there is no evidence to support it. It's a personal attack without basis. There was an investigation, and the conclusion did not support the accusation. Unless further evidence comes to light to support a reinvestigation, responsible editors should treat that as a closed topic. They certainly shouldn't keep repeating the accusation as if it has been proven and using it as a priori evidence of guilt in other matters. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 23:17Z

The investigation you mention could only prove that both accounts were coming from the same party if they both resolved to the exact same IP address. I think it would be very easy to get around this sort of test. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As both accounts resolve to an IP address that is in the same community in Florida (and that community is known to also be where one of Smart's residences is located), it's not too far-fetched (in light of other evidence, such as writing styles and the timing of posts) to deduce that this is all the work of one person. In fact, I would argue that not reaching this conclusion in light of the facts is blinding one's eye to what should be readily apparent. Mael-Num 09:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr and WarHawkSP blocked from editing Derek Smart, with permanent semi protection for the Derek Smart article

1) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and WarHawkSP (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked from editing Derek Smart, with permanent semi protection for the Derek Smart article

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is my solution for the current problem. Both the SPA's Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP have been disrupting the editing of the aforementioned article by removing cited content critical of Smart. When both the accounts were suspended the article and the talk page were vandalised by anonymous IP's leading to both the article and talk page being semi protected. Supreme_Cmdr has stated that he will return with a anonymiser if banned [53]. Hence I beleive that in addition to banning Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP, the Derek Smart article should be in a permanent semi protection status to prevent abuse by anonymous IP's.Kerr avon 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As an article that has been in a state of near-permanent edit warring for as long as I can remember, I'd support this. Nandesuka 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur, this will work very will with the anti-SPA measure enacted above. Without it though, it's not as effective. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kerr, it is hardly surprising that you who have been not only guily on numerous occassions of pov-pushing, having your edits reverted by myself and others, having been warned numerous - numerous - times for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA would be calling for me to be banned. There is zero evidence that my edits on the article have been disruptive. Zero. The fact that I have been blocked for 3RR violations is not proof of that. Especially when you consider that even though I was blocked (through 3RR traps by you and your friends who take turns to edit an article in order to bypass the 3RR rule) I was never blocked for tainting the article or pov pushing. On several occassions, even the material for which I was 3RR blocked, ended up being put back in by other editors and remains as-is today. Once again, I have to warn you that calling me an SPA is a violation of WP:NPA. But you already know this since you have been warned many, many times by other editors and admins. You being one of the proponents of a tainted and WP:RS and WP:BLP violating Wiki have no leg to stand on when it comes to what should be done about the Wiki. Naturally, since you, SwaJester, Nandesuka et al are the ones who keeping tainting the article and against who I have been engaged in the battle to keep the article npov, it is hardly surprising that you folks would band to together. How utterly predictable. The bottome line is that you all will fail; because the evidence speaks for itself. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course as you yourself have quite correctly stated, my edits which have been NPOV have been disruptively reverted by you and WarHawkSP, which is what lead to this request for arbitration. For example regarding the inclusion of a slashdot article discussing Smart you and warhawk disruptively reverted it as evidenced by [54], [55], [56]. That is just one of many examples of the disruptive behaviour which lead to this article and its talk page being semi protected.

Calling you a SPA is not a violation of WP:NPA, its a fact. You account fits the definition of WP:SPA by your edits. On the other hand your above statement shows you making a lot of personal attacks against editors. Kerr avon 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: