Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Full text of statements

Some statements made at WP:RFAR have been trimmed for length. The full text is here. Thatcher131 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Supreme Cmdr

I agree, in part, with SwatJester's summary except to add the following:

  • I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor do I know who they. I am being accused of this by the same editors who seek to inject [WP:BLP] violating derogatory material into the Wiki and without opposition. Anyone who opposes, is accused of being a sock puppet. I would be willing to provide a member of the ArbCom committee my personal information, under strict confidentiality, so that they can verify this. It is my hope that WarHawkSP and the others being accused of this, will do the same.
  • I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases. If he were involved in that page, given his history, he would either have been perma-banned or had the page deleted. These people don't know him well enough to make this call. The exception being Bill Huffman who has stalked him incessantly for going on ten years now. So as not to repeat what has already been posted about this Huffman person, I urge you to please read the summary poster here in the WP:BLP noticeboard.
  • The problem with the article is that editors like Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman and their ilk want to re-write history and inject policy violating material into the Wiki. These include the following.

Thats when Bill started along a new path. Claiming that since he wasn't editing the article - only the talk page - that he wasn't influencing anything. So the argument continues and continues despite the fact that apart from consensus, policy clearly prohibits Usenet posts. Lets not even go into the strict WP:BLP guidelines which they are conveniently ignoring.

  • I have been blocked several times for reverting this improper material. The other side then point to my blocks as proof that I have been disruptive, when in fact the post history proves otherwise. Recently WarHawkWP was blocked for reverting. By the time his block expired, the two items he was blocked for, were in the end not allowed into the article anyway. Several editors have seen this behavior on Wiki and not just on this page. To the extent that an ex-admin made this comment on another editor's page. That was before he was accused of being a sock puppet. Something that the opposing side couldn't seem to make up their mind about.

Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to uninvolved user SAJordan who said:
in Supreme Cmdr's statement, "I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases." From this I deduce that Supreme Cmdr is either clairvoyant or telepathic, since otherwise he could not state with such certainty that which only Derek Smart himself could truly know. Presumably any other resemblance between the opinions and writings of these two different people is also due to such a telepathic link. I ask ArbCom to give this explanation (as an alternative to sockpuppetry) all the consideration it deserves
This is no big secret and anyone who has ever been in a forum or on Usenet with Derek Smart knows that he makes this statement repeatedly and thus far has stuck to it. The mere fact that Derek Smart would hide under and alias isn't even something worth debating about because thats the whole reason why he is so notorious. He has always said that he hides in plain sight or somesuch. Google is your friend. Use it. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Beaker342 who said:
1. Smart is a controversial figure, and the article to be objective must reflect that. Smart is better known for his online behavior than for his computer games. Sumpreme Cmdr's claims otherwise are simply false. I'll cite the lead sentence in the review of his most recent game Universal Combat at the highly respected gaming site Gamepsot: “Controversy is an undocumented feature in games designed by outspoken developer Derek Smart.”
2. Besides being SPAs with a solitary interest in Smart and his games, removing anything critical of Smart in articles on him and his games, and being based out of Ft. Lauderdale where Smart lives, Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk have also repeatedly displayed preternatural knowledge of Smart’s business dealings [46] and legal history [47]. The fact that Supreme_Cmdr/Warhawk have intricate knowledge of Smart's biography that is not available to even the most dedicated of researchers stands as further circumstantial evidence that we are in fact dealing with WP:AUTO. --Beaker342 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is hardly surprising that the same claims made by the other editors who, like you, have been pov-pushing, are made here by you as well. Trying to push that Smart is better know for his controversy than his games is just plain laughable and clearly outlines why this Wiki edit war has been going on. If indeed Smart were famouse for his controversy, and not for his industry contributions (of which there are many, including being on the board of his local IGDA chapter), his dealings (of which he has had many and with various leading publishers), there would be no Wiki article about him would there? Get real.
Universal Combat is not his recent game. That game was released in 2003. His recent game was released just two months ago.
In your fashion, let me pull up some cites for you. I could fill volumes with these and which unlike what you guys are posting, are factual.
The closing statement by the EIC of a leading gaming magazine, Computer Gaming World from their face-to-face meeting with Smart when they went to visit him in South Florida
"I'm on the plane heading back to California, and I'm thinking about everything I've heard. I take out a sheet of paper and start making out a list of adjectives. Smart. Witty. Stubborn. Angry. Tenacious. Loyal. Thoughtful. Obssessive. Proud."
A closing quote from sci-fi's review of his 2005 game.
"It's almost criminal that so much effort by an independent developer has gone into such an ambitious albeit flawed game, and that the end product costs less than a cheap dinner for two. For the game's fanbase, UC:AWA needs no further recommendation."
A quote from an editorial about his industry shenanigans
"This is why I love Derek Smart. He is like a relic from that dead age, one that refuses to die along with his peers. I like to think that my fondness for Derek and my lament for the dead, developer-heavy gaming community of years past has little to do with the shallow worship of celebrities that is so common among our species. The best of the old-guard game developers had about them the air of artists, creators, intellectuals, and not least of all, gamers. I was never interested in Sid Meier for his fame, fortune, or sex appeal (though he is one sexy, sexy man); I was (and remain) interested in Sid Meier for his accomplishments, talents, and routine insights into the things that make good games tick. Interest in any given game developer has more in common with devotion to a beloved author than with anything related to the celebrity gossip industry."
Since someone posted about GameSpy, here's one I just came across
"Derek Smart isn't famous. It'd be more accurate to call him infamous. He's also misunderstood. Few game developers are as controversial, headstrong, passionate, arrogant, brilliant, ambitious, and tenacious as he has proven to be. He's best known for the Battlecruiser 3000AD game series, the most ambitious space simulation ever conceived and produced by one person. He then had to watch it crash and burn when Take 2 released it prematurely. Rather than sulk, quit, or just move on to something different, Derek continued working on the game. Doing so won him some devoted fans. Unfortunately, along the way his outspokenness earned some devoted enemies.
In the years since, things have calmed down somewhat. Even as he closes in on 40 with a signed contract with Dreamcatcher Interactive in his pocket, he's still as outspoken as ever. We managed to get some time from Derek's busy schedule to answer some questions about Battlecruiser Millennium Gold, Battlecruiser: Generations, Battlecruiser Online, and much more. "
So you see, anyone can turn this into a popularity contest. Derek Smart is a game developer. He is also human and not infallible by any means. Those who don't like him, tend to take this premise and twist it to suit their own purposes, but it doesn't change the man nor the facts as they stand.
As to the biography of Derek Smart, there isn't a single thing that I've posted, that isn't sourced. Thats what an encyclopedia is about. Just because I know about it and you don't, doesn't make me an SPA. It just happens to be convenient for you folks to claim this because without myself and others to oppose you, the Wiki would be frought with inaccuracies and pov pushing.
Comment to uninvolved_User:JzG uninvolved_User:JzG] who said:
As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart...
Your mention of the duck test as it applies to this incident is as laughable and gullible as anyone on Wiki crying foul just because a group of people share the same views. There are other editors apart from myself, WarHawkSP etc who do not want to see the Wiki tainted with unsourced and derogatory material that has no place in it. You should be focused on that, as well as the premise for the ArbCom request, instead of expending energy trying to prove a negative with such an utterly silly and laughable inference. In this instance, and to my scientific brain, the duck test fails due to backward regression. And yet, you were able to read up on ten years and over 100K posts worth of flame war material in one sitting and came up with this conclusion. Yeah right. The only duck I see here is you. In other words, your $0.02c is worthless and based on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions with no factual basis in reality. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to SwatJester who said:
I urge the ArbCom to keep in mind that Smart is a subject where a large majority of the material is highly critical and his public portrayal is highly inflammatory. That's the reason for his fame. It does not seem that there would be a problem including relevant material praising Smart, if such material existed in great numbers. However, there is a great deal of relevant critical material, from major and reliable sources, and given the subject of this article, a non 50/50 weight towards criticism in the article would hardly be considered "undue weight".
The reason for his fame has nothing to do with him being highly inflammatory. Thats like saying that Bill Clinton is notable for being a cheater or that Rev. Caldwell is known for being a homophobe. Opinions can be and are subjective. Unless you know Smart have kept up with his industry history, read every single interview, read every single opinion, seen every video footage, met him personally etc, you can't be objective. He is notorious for engaging his critics. So who wouldn't be? He is a public figure and apart from being an famous indie game developer who has shipped no less than eight games, he is also perceived as being abrasive because he simply doesn't take crap from anyone.
However, none of this has anything to do with Wiki policy and this is why most just don't get it. You can write anything you want in the Wiki as long as you adhere to policy of which WP:BLP has the strictest requirements and which most of these opposing editors (e.g. Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman) who don't like him (for whatever reason) seem to want to ignore so that they can further their agenda. These editors want to throw out policy, ignore guidelines and push pov. Hence the problem that the Wiki is having. An example is found right there in your statement above "where a large majority of the material is highly critical". Not only is that untrue, you have no way of producing sourced material that upholds that claim. The fact that you want to balance negative and positive material clearly indicates that you have lost sight of what the Wiki is about and that is exactly the problem that these editors have been having. You cannot push pov. Period. End of story.
Nobody cares if Smart is likeable, nice, pets cats, kicks dogs or pulls wings off butterflies, what he ate for breakfast, how many times he's been married, gotten laid or whatever. Nobody cares. What we do care about is that, as an encyclopedia, pertinent and relevant information be included because, guess what pal, this is a bio of a notable industry figure and is thus protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Like it or not, thats the way it is and nobody can just bend the rules as they see fit. Even Jimbo Wales has clearly and frequently talked about this.
Response to Newyorkbrad
Yeah, they rejected it by a 4 to 1 vote. It is quite clear that they have no clue what they were dealing with. Methinks that had they taken a closer look we probably wouldn't be here [again] by now.
And thinking that the admins are compentent enough to resolve it, is the kind of thing that makes Wiki come under attack so frequently. They're like those workers who just want to coast through their day. Being a volunteer means that whatever responsiblity you assume, you must uphold and treat with the highest respect. For the most part, some of the admins are clearly out of their league as it pertains to some of these articles. Also, some have been known to show favoritism, don't even bother to look at why they're protecting an article or blocking an editor etc. These are the same people who get voted in by their friends, who then in turn work the system. They get called, they show up, read one or two things, wave their BigBanStickOfDoom + 99 Hit Points around and leave. But not before hanging around for a [talk] post or two to pick on the latest wipping boy editor of the day. i.e. the one who is the most vocal. The result? As soon as the dust settles, everyone goes and gets healed and comes back. Rinse. Repeat. If there was any a Wiki page that has demonstrated abject abuse of [admin] power, its the Derek Smart page.
The ArbCom needs to ask themselves this: "Why the hell are we here arbitrating about matters which are CLEALY covered by EXISTING policy?". Every single item of contention above, is covered under policy. And if that policy is strictly adhered to, none of the above would be allowed. No debate needed. No ArbCom needed.
The reason we're still arguing about them is because the admins who have visited the article thus far don't want to adhere to policy either. Either that, or they don't understand it. If they did, we wouldn't be here vying for ArbCom attention. No, lets go ahead and block those editors who are fighting tooth and nail to uphold policy; while elevating pov-pushers, WP:NPA and WP:Civil violators to the next level of borderline sociopaths. Wiki is a sociological experiment that is failing in some areas as a result of these sociopaths who couldn't get along with a rabbit if it were blind, deaf and only had three legs. Yet, we expect them to get along with others who don't share their views. Yeah, OK. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kerr avon

Please kindly permit me to analyse the current problem, how it has arisen and why we request arbitration.

  • Background -: Derek Smart is a game developer who has developed the battlecruiser (now universal combat) franchise. He has become notable in the internet and the gaming community [[1]] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre[2] [3], but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him [4] and the said games on the USENET [[5] (with signed postings)and various internet forums.

Derek Smart's contribution to the longest running flame war in the USENET history can be evidenced a google search [6] for his name which returns >50,000 entries.

Smart's controversial nature as perceived by the gaming industry is evident as even reviewers of his games start of the review by mentioning his aggresive stance [7]] in defence of his own games.

The Derek Smart wiki article has been the subject of numerous edit wars with predominantly the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses have been found to originate from fort lauderdale florida where Derek Smart resides [8] and whose ISP is bellsouth. They have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and 3rr violations due to trying to remove cited commentrary critical of Smart not only from the article but from the discussion pages as well.

Due to the similarity of their abrasive writing style to Smart's and due to the fact that both of their IP addresses originate from Derek Smart's residential area, and due their vehement opposition to inclusion commentrary critical of Smart in this wiki they have been strongly suspected by involved parties to be sock puppets of Derem Smart himself. It should be noted that Supreme_Cmdr is the alias that Smart himself uses on his own forum, and Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad"[9]. As such serious consideration should be given as to if this bio falls under WP:AUTO.

When WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr were blocked recently, the article and the talk page were semi protected due to repeated edit warring by rotating IP addresses WP:ANI#Derek_Smart_edit_warring_and_User:Mael-Num] which originated from Fort Lauderdale, where Smart lives, which precipitated this request for arbitration.

  • Arbitration request -: We will need arbitration regarding the following key points.

1. Inclusion of the [ http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/] site.

This site is written by Bill Huffman who was a main participant in the aforementioned USENET flame war with Derek Smart. It contains a compendium of Smart's USENET postings with commentrary critical of them. The site is a prominent site and extensively cross referenced by authorities with regard to Derek Smart, as can be evidenced by its high page rank via a google search for "Derek Smart" [10], where it is in the 4th place.

A majority consensus Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4 was favourable for the inclusion of the site as a External link.

WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr have been vehemently protesting against the inclusion of the said site even as a external link, there prime argument being that the USENET posts have been forged/edited by Huffman. However repeated request to them to substantiate their allegations by demonstrating any possible alterations on the werewolves site which can be easily cross checked by USENET archives like google groups, have been ignored by them. And Huffman has claimed that the citings are all from Derek Smart's USENET postings.

So we need a arbitration ruling regarding whether the inclusion of the prominent werewolves site in the wiki biography as a external link would contravene the WP:BLP.

2. Whether Smart's own USENET postings can be cited in his biography to substantiate claims.

This has arisen due to the fact that Smart singns his official communiques with a Ph.D. Smart has never substantiated his claims of a Ph.D by offering even the name of the institution which granted him the doctorate, and there are USENET discussions regarding this aspect as well. Smart subsequatly signed as Derek Smart Ph.D (non acredited). However current communiques show that he still signs as "Derek Smart Ph.D". It is my consideration that the Ph.D controversy is noteworthy enough to be cited in his bio (as possible academic fraud is a serious offense).

We need arbitration is Derek Smart's own USENET postings as verified by his singature and the headers which contain the USENET server etc can be used as cites in his bio. This is mainly due to the fact that by nature Smart's reason for prominence is his contribution to the mamoth USENET flame war, and a special case should be made in his case.

3. What commentrary critical of Smart should be permitted.

WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr have been repeatedly removing cited commentrary critical of Smart claiming WP:BLP violations without substantiating under which clause the said inclusions violate WP:BLP.

Due to Smart's controversial nature commentrary critical of him which are properly cited should be included in his bio, so we need arbitration with regard to what commentrary critical of Smart is permissible to be included in his bio, and what is not, and what are the reliable sites to cite from/

The Final solution IMHO would be coming to a consensus regarding the above mentioned key facts, followed by vigorous supervision by admins, permanent semi protection of both the article and its talk page, and prompt banning of SPA's who violate the said consensus guidlines.Kerr avon 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Yamla

I am an uninvolved third party. To the best of my knowledge, I had never even read this article until today and certainly have no memory of ever having edited it. However, with more than 25,000 edits, I may have done. I am here as an outsider.

Note that Derek Smart has been the subject of numerous flame wars over the course of months and years. I believe initially usenet was the focus of these flame wars. This has been going back a good ten years or so. I believe it accurate to state that Smart himself would admit to being an active participant in these flame wars.

From my knowledge of the situation, Swatjester's summary thus far is accurate and I concur that a request for arbitration is a good idea at this point. Specifically, however, I want to emphasize that there is no direct evidence that Smart himself has participated, either directly or via a meatpuppet, in editing this article. However, this is at the very least possible. It is worth considering whether or not Smart should be allowed to edit this article or others about his products. I believe this to be inappropriate as he is not a neutral third party. --Yamla 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved User:JzG

Just to stick my $0.02 in, I did the same as Steel, reviewed the contribuitons of User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP, User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num, and came to exactly the same conclusion: they can justly be considered to be the same person. As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart... As with Langan, I think we can draw the necessary inference here.

If the case is accepted I would like to propose a temporary injunction banning the above accounts and credibly diagnosed sockpuppets from the article, since it's pretty much impossible for anybody to do any kind of cleanup on it while they are active. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved user SAJordan

I assume good faith in Supreme Cmdr's statement, "I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases." From this I deduce that Supreme Cmdr is either clairvoyant or telepathic, since otherwise he could not state with such certainty that which only Derek Smart himself could truly know. Presumably any other resemblance between the opinions and writings of these two different people is also due to such a telepathic link. I ask ArbCom to give this explanation (as an alternative to sockpuppetry) all the consideration it deserves. – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:11, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Supreme Cmdr adds, in a comment to me above,

"The mere fact that Derek Smart would hide under and alias isn't even something worth debating about because thats the whole reason why he is so notorious. He has always said that he hides in plain sight or somesuch."

Well. That appears to be an admission. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:53, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I don't see any reason to assume Supreme Cmdr must be Derek just because he appears to know a lot about Derek. While it's possible perhaps even likely, it's also possible he's a friend, relative or simply someone who has an unhealthy interest in Derek. Whatever the case, it's a bit silly IMHO to suggest that Supreme Cmdr must be a clairvoyant because of the statement quoted. It sounds to me that what he's saying is that in his/her apparently strongly informed opinion, Derek Smart does not edit as anon or hide under aliases. This is not being clairoyant but simply stating that he or she does not believe Derek Smart would hide under an alias. Nil Einne 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect a clever, skilled person who does use anonymity or aliases to proclaim the fact, because that could defeat the purpose. (There are people who do admit such things to others, for various reasons, but I don't see any hint of such reasons here.) So I can't assert, with anything like SC's certainty, that anyone, other than myself or someone I watch over every minute, is not doing X, Y, or Z on the 'Net, if they've got the ability to do so. I can say it of myself... but that cannot give you any such certainty that I'm telling the truth. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:38, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Statement by uninvolved user Nil Einne

I haven't reviewed the case in depth but from what I've seen it's possible that one or more of the users involved may be Derek Smart. Also, it looks to me like they've probably gone to far and not handled various things well. However whatever the outcome of this case, I think it's important that the committee make some points clear. Reading the comments of some people involved at various places, there appears to be a misunderstanding of BLP. While BLP may have originally arisen out of concerns of libel, my understanding of the policy is that it's no longer solely concerned with libel. Rather, it's about the idea that it's extremely important to strictly uphold wikipedia standards given the amount of hurt that can be cause to living individuals if we don't, regardless of whether libel is of concern. (Remember the "do no harm provision")

For this reason, we protect the privacy of non-public inviduals. We also require reliable sources strictly. Also, and this is one thing a lot of people involved don't seem to get, we refrain from speculating or offering opinions about living people on talk pages. Wikipedia is not a forum. If your information cannot go into the article, you generally shouldn't be talking about it in the talk page either. (This is always the case but is doublt so in BLPs, especially of non-public people.) What this means is that if you don't have a reliable source for some information, you generally shouldn't include it in the talk page either. This makes enlisting the help of others to find a reliable source more difficult but it an unavoidable consequence. (i.e. don't say, well I think this is true, can someone find a source for it.) Similarly, if the information is non-noteable especially when the individual is not considered a public figure, you shouldn't be talking or mentioning it in the talk page.

We all do this sometimes, I'm sure I have. But other people are fully entitled to remove it from the talk page. When people do remove such comments/information from the talk page, it is essential editors accept that as a good thing rather then getting into a huff or defensive. To be clear, this doesn't mean editors have the right to remove anything they disagree with from the talk page or that editors removing comments are always right. But unsourced speculation & non-noteable information of living people, especially when this is likely to cause harm should usually go. Even more so when these people aren't public figures (although Derek Smart is a semi-public figure IMHO). It's also important to remember that BLP applies to all living people. If you're talking about Derek Smart's marriages & divorces, remember there are other people (wives & perhaps children) who also need to be considered to some degree. Obviously this doesn't mean we necessarily censor information to protect others involved. I'm simply trying to say although Derek (or whoever) may be a semi-public figure, it's arguable if his wives or children are so there's no carte-blanche to let your imaginations run wild (as we tend to allow a little more leeway with public figures, especially politicians)

To try and clarify what I'm trying to say, I draw attention to 2 specific cases. In Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal/Archive 2, the name of the accuser was first mentioned by one or two radio hosts. The fact that this was the correct name was possibly confirmed by some paper (which didn't publish the name). Regardless, it was felt by several people that publishing this name on wikipedia was not justifiable at the time. Someone removed said name from the talk page. IMHO this was completely justified as would have been removing links to sites which publish said name. This name has now been published in other sources and so can be included in the article, but this doesn't change the fact that it was right to remove any mention of the name from the talk page. Obviously discussing whether the fact that a name hadd been mentioned in the radio show was acceptable, just not publishing the name. N.B. While it's possible that libel issues could have arisen here, IMHO the primary reason to remove them was because of the harm it could cause to have it there, not because of libel.

The second case I'm a bit more hestitant do draw attention to but it is Talk:2006 Ipswich murder investigation#the myspace FOUND. In this case, I removed a link to a mirror of the former suspect's myspace page. Given that there was clearly a consensus not to include it in the article, and this was while he was still a suspect, I felt there was no justification for it to remain in the talk page anymore especially after he'd been released. Note that I'm not saying that this link shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. Obviously you need the link to ask if it should be included. But once the discussion is concluded, if having the link does more harm then good, it should be removed.

So in conclusion, I hope that editors and arbitators don't allow whatever wrongs may have been commited in this case to cloud the fact that removing talk page comments is allowed under BLP, and should be done in a number of instances regardless of whether the issue of libel arises. Specifically, I hope that the arbitrators re-affirm the principles of BLP whatever their decision on the specific behaviour of individuals in this case. '

Nil Einne 17:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I've heard about DS before this and have even tried one of his games. However I've also heard about the controversy surrounding him, and I personally have always thought he's a royal idiot. I'm also always very strongly defensive of BLP and believe it may not go far enough in some regards. I say this not to get into a debate, but simply to provide context to my views Nil Einne 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

Moved from the main RfAr case by the Clerk

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart[11] and sometimes not[12]. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP[13]. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "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.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al.[14][15][16] Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My reading of WP:SPA is that User:Mael-Num is an SPA. Charles Matthews 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision states that Mael-Num was an SPA, and this appears to have been true as of the time that the decision was initially drafted. By the time the case was closed and the decision finalized, and certainly as of today, Mael-Num had diversified his editing activity and certainly is not an SPA with respect to the Derrick Smart article as of today. Whether the decision should be updated to reflect such changed circumstances, or supplemented with a note that administrator judgment should be used in determining SPA status for purposes of applying the remedy, is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would again encourage admins, in particular, to apply 'judgement and discretion' here. There is no need to apply the remedy passed according to the letter. Charles Matthews 13:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it would be wise for User:Mael-Num to adhere to the revert limitation in the remedy to avoid putting administrators in the position of having to make a judgment call regarding whether or not Mael-Num is an SPA. In the event that Mael-Num chooses not to do so, I am confident that the administrator community will review the totality of the circumstances with discretion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Derek_Smart_aee9.html"