Talk:Derek Smart/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Legal threats against FS2 Community

I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to add this as I was a direct participant of this piece of history. Derek Smart was considering acquiring the rights to FreeSpace 2 and came into our forums at Hard Light Productions (then hosted on 3dap, not at hard-light.net) and asked us about it - he got a resounding "NO!" from the community and then became hostile. He made baseless legal threats at my project The Ferrium Project (now defunct) and to the FreeSpace 2: Source Code Project (http://scp.indiegames.us). Feel free to email me for any and all details - slashdot article: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/17/0533221, my email address is thekazanNOSPAN at gmail DOT com - here are direct links to my slashdot posts on the subject -

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114794&cid=9724898 (many of the AC comments are suspected to be none other than Derek Smart in his flaming greatness) Lordkazan 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

None of this bears any relevance to this page. And dsmart does not post anon or under different aliases. I was on the old Avault forum where most of you were banned because you took your vendetta over there and proceeded to harrass him because you felt that you somehow were entitled to the Freespace IP when in fact none of you have done anything worthwhile with it.
The comment in the /. thread you pointed to is spot on. But of course if anyone says anything positive about dsmart or his games, you [detractors] all assume that it is him. Despite the fact that his followers (judging by his games' popularity and sales) vastly outnumber you vehement detractors and net stalkers.
Fact is he did not threaten legal action. He merely said that if he got the license, that he would not allow anyone in the open source project to continue proliferating the licensed name and that he didn't need any of your help because he wasn't at all impressed with what you folks had done with the freeware source code that was released. Like with all things on the Net, most of you feel that you can disregard IP rights and are up in arms each time an IP holder enforces or attempts to enforce it.
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.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Know what you're talking about before accusing other people of stalking him. He made baseless legal threats against my (now defunct) game engine project. That's a fact, not an opinion. Lordkazan 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I do know what I'm talking about. He never made any baseless legal threats against anyone. Let alone a defunct (I guess he was right all along about you folks screwing around with the FS license and not doing anything worthwhile with it) peace of crap mod. If you're going to post such nonsense, at least show some proof to back it up. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No you don't know what you're talking about. The Ferrium Project was a completely seperate entity from FreeSpace 2 and did not touch one bit of FreeSpace IP. It was a game engine and game project lead soley by me, the IP for which belongs to me and the Ferrium Team. I canned the project because I did not have enough programmers helping me develope the engine, and several of my concerns about the FS2 engine's maintainability because moot as a particularily talented programmer on the FreeSpace 2 Source Code Project team addressed them. Furthermore the FreeSpace 2: Source Code Project is still going strong and we're in final preperations to release FS2:SCP 3.6.9 as stable production release when we branch to 3.7 for huge systemwide upgrades. If you're going to push such nonsense as you have in your previous post - know what you're talking about.
CITATIONS:
Slashdot discussion http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/17/0533221 Lordkazan 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Let me assure you of one thing that you can go to sleep with tonite. I have FULL intentions of getting this license. If I DO get it, you and your teenny leetle friends on your Ferrous Oxide project, are effectively, shutdown because I don't piss around when it comes to IP properties. You would do well to ask around. I've sued publishers for less and I have attorneys around the world, literally on speed dial." - Derek Smart - (quoted by me) references: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114794&cid=9724898 http://ve3dboards.ign.com/space_shooter/b10507/16425097/p1/?35 ORIGINAL POST BY DEREK SMART! http://forums.avault.com/showthread.php?t=3207&page=3
I know what the I'm talking about, as I am the one the legal threats were made against. You're unencylopaedic fanboism has no place here! Lordkazan 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, my reply to his legal threat (which is now posted on my user page) is on the same page as his threat Lordkazan
you'll also notice that in my original post I even linked to some of the sources! Lordkazan 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart here vaguely threatened to shut down the whole modding operation of HLP (www.hard-light.net), especially Ferrium, and maybe HLP itself, should he acquire the license. If you claim otherwise after looking at his post, then you're in denial. I think Kazan here had a bit of a right to get defensive (indeed, he threatened countersuit, after which Smart to my knowledge ceased his threats). When you attack a community for trying to protect themselves from destruction (after years of being left alone) and accuse them of doing things simply out of spite, I think it is a fairly reasonable proposition to accuse you of bias yourself.

If you actually look at the now famous arguement on adrenaline vault forums, and on the hard light forums, while members of the community did give an emphatic no, they (with few exceptions, most of whom were talked down by other members of the community), at least at first, stuck to criticisms of his abilities as a game designer, while it was Smart who initiated the angry vitrolic. At any rate the community won, so there's no need for you to defend Smart like that.

Oh, and by the way, while the numbers of dedicated freespace fans are indeed considerably fewer than Smart's followers, there are huge numbers of veteran gamers who, while they are not diehard fans, nor anywhere close to this, very fondly remember Freespace 1 & 2. It was those people who HLP chose to contact and spread the news of Smart's interest in the license with, and it was those people who you often mistook for rabid freespace fans when anti DS forum topics and news posts started appearing all over the net. Arouet-harr 19:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research claims

This:

What is interesting about this is that there is no way any person - let alone a game reviewer - can tell by just playing a game, what sort of AI principle is used. Further, Smart is not the only developer (or publisher) who protects their product source code which is in fact where the value of the IP is. Publishers only have access to source code if they have rights to said code. Smart owns the rights to his entire IP and is under no obligation (legal or otherwise) to reveal it to anyone.

And this:

Neural Net or not, his games are mostly heralded for their advanced AI, high replayability value and open endedness.

Need citations. Ehheh 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Furthermore, not all of the citations in those recent edits actually claim what they are used to support. For example, this sentence:
There have been many articles written about Smart's AI...
refers to a URL that contains two short paragraphs plus a letter from Derek Smart. That's hardly "many articles" by any stretch of the imagination. Nandesuka 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I can locate all of them. But what you will do is just remove them. Similar to your whole edit reverts. So, it is pointless. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles require reliable sources. If you can not or will not provide reliable sources for disputed claims, then don't bother editing. Nandesuka 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Last, the editorial addition to the werewolves.org link is probably a violation of WP:NLT. Nandesuka 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not. I checked. There are other Wiki pages with much worse. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Another Wikipedia page sucks" is not an excuse for polluting this article with your personal opinions. Nandesuka 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I still have to see a respected authority on game reviewing or programming claim that Smarts games have "Advanced AI as he claims" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.247.245.40 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 July, 2006 (UTC).
  • It is certainly possible for a expert game reviewer to identify what sort of AI is been used in a game based on response times, the hardware requirements needed to run the game, and established AI patterns used in games so far. BC3000AD Claimed to use Neural networks for every object (NPC, enemy ships etc), which is highly improbable given the number of nets that have to be simulated (hundreds) and the relatively modest hardware requirements at that time (486's etc).
Complete nonsense. That is all I have to say. You're obviously not a programmer nor a reviever and are just using this talk page as a forum soapbox. Even an elementary and unexperienced programmer or reviewer will take one look at your statement and die laughing. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to stay civil; comment on the content and not the contributor. --Ideogram 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal closed!

The mediation cabal about this revert war has been officially closed..

Closing case; Mediation Cabal cannot handle
It does not appear that the Mediation Cabal is the proper avenue for handling this dispute. We are an informal initiative and cannot impose sanctions upon any editors or force the acceptance of a certain version of an article. I would recommend instead that you request administrator involvement in the article and the opinions of third parties to come to some sort of clear consensus about the page. You also should remember that consensus may or may not act in your favor, so you must be open to other suggestions to be willing to come to some sort of agreement. With that said, I am closing this case. Cowman109Talk 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Newsgroups

Can anyone quote policy or guidelines as to the usefulness of newsgroup articles for citations? I see comments like this, but I don't necessarily agree. I'd really like to reach some consensus on the Werewolves/Huffman thing and would like to try to write a good, neutral section on this. However, without usenet cites, I doubt there'd be much to say. - Chris 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you are. Ehheh 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunate. Lots of source material there. - Chris 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, this [1] is what happens when I get called away on business?

That was... absolutely off the wall, there was nary a source to be seen in that stew of accusation and use of words like "reported" and "single-handedly." I was actually going to suggest that perhaps the werewolves link could be turned into a section in the article going over the various back-and-forth controversies, but there is no way that that's going to happen without legitimate sourcing.

Cmdr, I was going to send you back a talk page message when I returned, I was really hopeful that you were honest in wanting to work on this amicably and within policy, but this just looks like a give an inch, take a mile situation.

Seriously, if you're honestly interested in working within policy, make a draft of this section in a subpage in your userspace and find sources. Don't place 6 paragraphs of unsourced assertion in the article and see if it'll slip by, that doesn't show much integrity.

Fox1 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be patient and assume good faith. It may take a while to explain the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and verifiability. --Ideogram 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted, while I would point out that this has been going on in a fairly circular fashion for quite some time, I left my initial, short-tempered response here and my calmer one on a user talk page. I probably should have restricted myself to the latter.
Fox1 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
One would assume good faith if the track record of this page weren't rife with this type of editing. A reading of Cmdr's most recent changes reads like both a screed against Huffman and a fawning puff piece on Smart. This is completely against wiki's guidelines. Much as he might like to, SupremeCmdr (who is so obviously Derek Smart it's not funny) cannot change history. Fox1 was completely justified in his revert of that ridiculous edit. Doggie Yum Yums 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No revert warring please

Please try to avoid making the disputed edits during the mediation. Simply reverting back and forth is not productive. If someone else reverts, do not respond in kind. --Ideogram 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Because of the ongoing edit war here, this page has been protected. Please work out your disputes here, using a temporary page if necessary as rough space, and then either leave me a message or request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been made. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This will almost certainly be rejected, and if it is accepted will take several months. I suggest you try to work out your differences without it. --Ideogram 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Flame War

Supreme Commander (and the Derek Smart article since its inception) have stated that the usenet Flame War should be part of the article. Supreme Commander has linked numerous times (including today) to the April 21, 2001 issue of Computer Gaming World that contains an interview with Smart. In the article Smart states: "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble." [2]

Why does Supreme Commander believe that including that direct quot (from a source that he himself uses)is either: "unsourced", "erroneous" or "false commentary"

I believe that Smart's explanation of his side of the Flame War is neutral, verifiable, and meets all the other good Wikipedia criteria.

Why do you believe differently Supreme Commander?

That information is completely out of context.
The dispute on this page has to do with the inclusion of the Werewolves link which - apart from being created by a known Smart detractor (Bill Huffman) - contains unsourced material and which cannot be considered to be factual or unedited. The previous edit waring was over the inclusion of that link.
As a compromise, several of us decided that until it is unequivocally deemed to be sourced, that it would be included but with the creation of a section on Bill Huffman in order to clearly put it into perspective. It has already been stated and verified that linking to anything that contains unsourced material is the same as cutting and pasting the material directly. For that reason, the Werewolves link cannot be allowed according to Wiki guidelines. At this point, only arbitration will decide that.
As to the CGW article. It was an article on Derek Smart. The flame war just happened to be mentioned in it. Further, he never said anything about starting a flame war. The inference is that because whenever he posts these people jump on him, he tends to post just to piss them off. He has that right. Your point - if there ever was one - is moot. That article does not say anything about who is responsible for the flame wars. Verily that article came about many years after the flame war was started back in 1997 and had all but died down by then.

>> Verily that article came about many years after the flame war was started back in 1997 and had >> all but died down by then.

The article you linked to disagrees with you - have you read it?


The article begins:

"What started out as the dream of a lone, unknown programmer mushroomed into the longest, mots savage, and most ridiculous flame war this industry has ever seen, with Smart as much at fault as anyone else, and five years after BATTLECRUISER's release, the game is not completely dead. Type Derek Smart's name into an Internet search engine, and you'll see strands of it all over ... Any thread that Derek Smart appears in, regardless of the original topic, devolves into a Derek Smart flame war."

Later in the article Smart states: "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble."

The article continues:

"But why Derek, why" why bait the guys who have tormented you so relentlessly?" and finishes: "You wanna take on Derek Smart? go ahead. Make his day. He's waiting for you."

This obviously pertains to the flame war, in Smart's own words, with a link that you have provided. Are you actually suggesting that permission is needed to include a quote from Computer Gaming World? Are you claiming that the quote is non-neutral, non-verifiable or that adding Smart's opinion about the Flame War on a Wikipedia entry about Derek Smart is unacceptable.


When you cut and pasted that line you did so without permission and also where you posted it puts the issue out of context. You might as well go on Usenet and post over eight million (!) posts which document the flame war; the majority of which are not Smart's posts.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
>> When you cut and pasted that line you did so without permission
Permission from who?

1997 = "early nineties"?

The article currently states "...starting the Great Flame Wars of the early nineties back in 1997." How can 1997 be considered the early nineties?

Working version

Here is my current commentary on needed changes.

I would note that the most urgent change is that we need to work from the old version of the "other issues" section, the current section is just about irrepairable.

Please respond, here, on the user page, or create your own.

As the Supreme Commander has made no objections here, I think we should put back the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&oldid=66197094 version

Fox1 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I object. The currently protected version is just fine. And the page should remain protected until the arbitration process decides the outcome. Any revert at this point will lead to the same problem, as is evident by this anon person (see below) demonstrates. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I too second fox's suggestion. Anyway the current wikipedia page on smart should be changed, it looks like a gloryfication and masturbatory excess by one of Smart's lackys and is no way indicative of a biography. The reason for all of this problems is that Smart has behaved badly in the past calling users four letter words and other obsceneties as a google groups search would show, and now that he is more mature he is trying to deny that fact that he posted and hence all the controversy. For example take the article about Smart versus Huffman, it mentions that huffman got a kid to stalk smart, but nowhere is a source cited, which makes that whole chapter doubious.

This is just a fine example of why this page is locked. As to the stalking incident, it is widely known. Do your own research. Even police records exist and Smart posted them on his website at one point. I am going to contact him to see if I can locate it, but the link to it exists on Usenet and via one of the Google links here on this Talk page in the Huffman section. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalking is a serious allegation and since Derek Smart/Supreme_cmdr has not submitted any conclusive proof of such a incident occuring this must be removed from the wikipedia, otherwise the wiki can be even sued.

Several Other errors which must be corrected... 1. "Bill Huffman is responsible for single handedly starting the Great Flame Wars of the early nineties" Bill Huffman was certainly a significant contributor to the wars, but it is a exaggeration to say that he started single handedly the flame wars. Derek Smarts contributions too helped to fuel the war, when he calls people "f@ck you" naturally it will cause a volatile situation. 2. Most of the statements in the huffman vs Smart section are not substantiated, like "smart supposedly had to move his house", the whole section should be rewritten or removed.

The current page is completely biased towards smart and does not have a neutral point of view so it should be reedited.

Was the request for protection based on a fib?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=66224209 Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)==== + Will someone please add full protection to the Derek Smart page please? For many months now it has been the target of edit waring and it doesn't seem to be getting any better; especially with the anons. The latest edit I did is the most current based on recent revisions by most of us editing that page. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While the latest edit is the "most current" by definition, it in no way represents any agreement or consensus and clearly adds a big chunk of unsupported and un-verified text.

It in no way reflects "recent revisions by most of us editing that page" and to claim so is dishonest.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by an anon user on this page and who repeatedly makes posts without signing them.

Being protected in no way endorses the current version of the page, as noted in the protection notice. It simply prevents edit-warring. --Ideogram 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that - but the request does demonstrate the a certain believe of a truth that does not agree with reality. It is difficult to reach a consensus when one of the participants believes that something they posts represents "most of us editing the page" when it obviously does not.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by an anon user on this page and who repeatedly makes posts without signing them.
You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. The only alternative to seeking consensus is to file a Request for Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee generally does not accept content disputes and even if they do the process will take months. --Ideogram 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we're all able to read the notice clearly posted on the front page; no, the lock is not an endorsement of the current version. The concern, however, is that the lock was immediately placed without, as far as I can tell, any oversight or even cursory examination of the page's history. I had never been under the impression that an unquestioned lock was that easy to obtain. Neither does it seem terribly fair to place an apparently indefinite lock on a page, reply to all concerns with "this is not an endorsement" and give no avenues to remove the lock other than "concensus" when only one editor even endorses the current version. I understand that a simple majority is not concensus, but neither is one vocal dissenter a lack of concensus.
This conflict has been occurring for months, the first mediation request led nowhere, a mediator left, I believe, one message and was never heard from again, and we have had great difficulty getting any other moderating input. The only timely response this page has received has been the exceptionally speedy lock.
Fox1 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Admin forgot to attach proper label to main page
Admin forgot to attach proper label to main page

Organized discussion

Let's try to organize the discussion.

Please list below each problem with the current locked version. Once we have the list of problems we can discuss acceptable alternatives. If necessary we can have straw polls to assess which alternatives have the most support. --Ideogram 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the comments placed here as they were not productive. Please remember to be civil; comment on the content and not the contributor.

Now, let's try again. Please list specific content problems and suggestions for correcting them. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Ideogram 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it would appear that giving my comments and concerns their own heading did not make them obvious enough.
Again, Here are my issues and suggestions.
Fox1 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Supreme_Cmdr, please respond to the criticism Fox1 has written of your version. Fox1, it would help if you could propose a rewrite that addresses your concerns. --Ideogram 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy this past week traveling. I will go over Fox1's rewrite now and make suggestions. At least we've established two things: (1) USENET is not a reliable source and as such any/all Usenet postings should be removed (2) random websites e.g. the much contested Werewolves site where Huffman hosts his page, is not considered a reliable source. This is what sparked the original fracas to begin with. It took several admins to make this clear to Fox1 et al. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly pointed out, an external link is not the same thing as a source. Many links that can not be used as sources are still acceptable for use as external links. In fact, the reason we have external links is to point readers at information that can't be on wikipedia itself for one reason or another. Ehheh 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see what the point of the Werewolves link is. Can anyone explain to me why this external link should be included? --Ideogram 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Smart not proving to the satisfaction of his critics regarding the genuineness of his Ph.d, there is no one source, USENET archives of Smart's postings show him to initially vigourously defend the genuineness of his Ph.d albeight inconsistently, he later admitted that it was from a degree mill, he still justified putting the letters Ph.D [3]

220.247.250.178 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last post to an anon. If you spend so much time typing up all this, you should be able to register like everyone else. Or are you afraid that with a registered a/c it would be that much easier to ban you?
Anyway, Smart has always defended his Ph.D. There is no proof that it does not exist. If anything, given his high profile nature and number of publishing deals, his previous work experience in the IT industry, it is not unlikely that he would have been outed by now if it was in fact invalid. Its not like his Ph.D, or lackof, is the industry's best kept secret. From my understanding of the Usenet rhetoric, he claims to have a Ph.D. A lot of people believe him. He confided in several people about it, including a Princeton professor (who is himself a public figure). There is a link about this somewhere in the Huffman section of this talk page. He says that he completed his degree via distance learning. Which in itself is not unheard of or farfetched. The only email which Huffman posted and claimed to have come from someone, was declared fake and doctored (as was Huffman's claim that Smart doctored a rascist email which he vigorously denies). That email showed Smart admitting that his degree was from an unaccredited institution. Huffman, despite several arguments to the contrary, immediately took upon himself to cite that since it was unaccredited, that it must be from a degree mill. He even took his fight to the alt.distance forums where he was promptly labeled a kook and sent packing. He then surfaced at another forum where online degrees were being discussed. He was warned by the moderators to not bring any of his Smart nonsense there. Those links were all posted on Usenet. When I find time, I will dig them up and link them to this posting.
So, thats how it all started. Even the email which Huffman claims to have received, didn't say anything about where the degree had come from. Huffman simply used the degree mill argument to further fuel his attack on Smart.
The bottom line is that back in the flamewar days, the detractors (of which I am almost 100% certain this anon person is one, due to his posts, insults etc) would latch onto anything to discredit and/or character assasinate him. The cited CGW article visited Smart and wrote that article based on the popularity of those flame wars. NOWHERE in that article did they - or any credible news source for that matter - claim that Smart did or did not have a valid Ph.D.
In fact, Huffman and co even went on to say that Smart may not possess any degree of any kind and did not finish high school. Those claims are not only dubious but given the nature of the man's work and his industry shenanigans any fool with half a brain will take one look and move on. That was the very nature of the flamewar. There was unfounded and unproveable accusations flying every which way and anything and everything was game. It was a mess. Smart, who never ran into a fight he didn't like back then, fully engaged. That only served to fan the flames. Once he resigned Usenet in 1999, the whole thing just died. Thats why they started following (stalking) him on forums where he had taken to posting. Once the flamewars erupted there, those following him were banned. Smart himself was banned from one such site (QT3) because he got into an argument with a moderator over the banning of another member. His banning had nothing to do with Huffman. Huffman was banned there for disrupting the site and provoking Smart, despite several warnings. This has happened on several forums.
Another example of Huffman's operation. On his Werewolves site, he even goes on to say that Smart suffers from NPD. Without access to Smart's medical records, isn't that libel? So, how can anyone even remotely take Huffman's site seriously or use it as a reliable source when in fact the majority of the entries are based on one detractor posting libelous material and material which may have been tampered with in order to portray the detractor's intent?
Supreme_Cmdr(talk)
I don't think debates over whether Smart has a PhD are necessary for this article. We really don't have any verifiable sources on this one way or another. Also I don't think it is productive to talk about Huffman. If all of Huffman's claims were made on USENET and his website we can't reference any of them. It is probably best to ignore everything said by Huffman unless someone can find a quote in a reliable source. --Ideogram 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! This is what this debate has been about all these months. The revert war caused one [[[BBlackmoor]] user] to just leave in disgust. The detractors want it in because it suits their purpose. All it does is libel and character assassinate Smart. Nothing more. Nothing less. Also, most of the items were also determined to be fake, doctored or patently libelous (e.g. claims that he suffers from NPD). Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately USENET is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. --Ideogram 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If USENET is not considered a reliable source, then everything related to smarts flame wars should be removed as the references are not reliable. Taking this to a extreme one can argue that Smart was never involved in any flame war in the first place as anyone could have posted as Smart.

Going through the Linus Torvalds article on wikipedia one sees "Linus publicized [5] his creation on the USENET newsgroup comp.os.minix.", so why is USENET considered a reliable source for Torvalds and not for Smart. Someone masquarading as Torvalds may have posted that original request for kernel help.

The point I am stressing is that under some circumstances, like Smart's flame war's USENET will have to be considered a reliable source, for example the above link showing Smart defending his allegations against his Ph.d should be considered genuine unless Smart himself claims otherwise, when the matter can be given due consideration. If USENET is not considered reliable, remove every link to the flame wars, huffman, etc. 220.247.250.178 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference between the two scenarios is that it would be against policy to simply take the information directly from USENET into the article, but if Random PC Magazine, a hypothetical valid secondary source, stated that Torvalds did such and such on USENET, we could then include it based on that source. This would be analgous to a situation where a statement made by a person could not be included based on the blog of someone in attendance, but could be included if the blog was quoted by CNN (with a comment saying "reported by CNN").
Honestly, though, my recent perusals through Wikipedia:Reliable Sources have left me less than impressed with the guidelines, and, frankly, I think a huge number of WP article would find themselves gutted if those rules were rigorously enforced.
Fox1 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider this, we all know that the Flame Wars happened and that Smart was a major contributor. If we are not allowed to cite USENET reports then what are we supposed to source to backup those claims. Logic fails me as to how for wikipedia to accept something on the USENET, another person has to comment that. Say in Smarts case one magazine says that Smart never was involved in the flame wars and all the posts were by someone out to harm smarts reputation, then this will be gospel truth and entitled to be used in the wiki. USENET was a part of hacker culture and to call it unverifiable is not quite correct. Say someone as famous as George Bush posts regurlarly on USENET under his own name and title and no one questions his credentials then, what he said on the USENET should be taken as true. If USENET is a unverifiable source, then ALL the references to Huffman should be removed too, so this article is in need of a urgent re-edit.

My interpretation of the policy is that we can say "Derek Smart was involved in flame wars on USENET" but we can't actually refer to any posts from USENET to verify statements made in the article.
I believe that the quote the direct Derek Smart quote from Computer Gaming World "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble." is relevent to the flaming section. weighs in
My opinion is that we can use Computer Gaming World as a source. Now quit reverting the article. --Ideogram 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, please sign your posts with ~~~~. --Ideogram 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_cmdr alias Derek Smart makes the following allegation "Bill Huffman is responsible for single handedly starting the Great Flame Wars of the early nineties back in 1997", now we should be able to quote the USENET to substantiate that claim, or else it should be removed altogether. Derek Smart himself was such a prolific contributor that he too should take the credit/blame for the flame wars. 124.43.232.74 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks,

Firstly, I have unprotected the page as there seems to be a decent discussion going on. If you (defined as anyone who has edited the page this month) continue the sterile revert war, you will be blocked for disruption.

Secondly. We have a guideline called Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which deals explicitly with a lot of the issues that have come up here. In particular, it is not acceptable to add defamatory or critical material without citing strong and reliable sources. Newsgroup postings, random websites, and the like are most assuredly not reliable. If you insert a critical comment, you are expected to put a nice big and exact reference with almost that exact wording right next to it.

Thank you. That right there solves the issue of the hotly contested Werewolves link. I have now removed it from the article. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone went and put it back in. Since that person is anon, I can only guess that the person is using a dynamic IP faker. I have once again removed it. This is exactly how this page devolved. Now they're claiming some sort of imaginary consensus and ignoring the Wiki guidelines for reliable sources. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If Supreme_cmdr is in fact Mr. Smart, then I recommend he reads WP:AUTO before proceeding with further edits. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Supreme_cmdr is Derek Smart so I strongly recommend that no one make these allegations again. --Ideogram 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have said several times that I am not Smart. I have contacted him several times about this page and for clarification about certain things and he has expressed that he wants nothing to do with it. The last email I sent him was for a link to the police reports on the LouisJM stalking incident. I have yet to hear from him. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The werewolves site is not a random site, in fact a google search for derek smart returns 6,490,000 results with the werewolves site ranked the 3rd. So the werewolves site cannot be considered a random site, and should and can be used as reference so the link should be there. Obviously it is diffcult to prove that anyone is so and so, Ideogram can be even George Bush, but unless he says so we will never have proof. However consider the following facts which will lend credibility to the fact that supreme_cmdr is infact derek smart, 1. Supreme_cmdr is the alias that smart has used for a long time on the 3000ad forums. 2. THe only edits that Supreme_cmdr has done are with regard to Smarts bio and the universal combat games. 3. All his edits have been glorifying Smart, and removing all ngative views on Smart. He will us the wik guidlines tohis advantage only.

The fact that the Werewolves site shows up 3rd in a Google search doesn't make it a reliable source. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking, like textbooks, peer-reviewed journals and major newspapers.
It is not productive to continue debating whether Supreme_Cmdr is Derek Smart. You are never going to prove it, and even if you could, so what? That wouldn't change the fact that USENET postings and most websites are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. This accusation and debate is a complete waste of time and if you insist on bringing it up again I will advise everyone to ignore you. --Ideogram 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Information or metainformation?

Hmm, after having browsed this entire debate it seems to me that there is a great confusion about what you are really discussing, inf act, it seems you are debating two different things altogether. The alias Supreme Commander argues that the page in question has invalid information about Derek Smart as a person, and thus assumes that the external site is inforamtion about Derek Smart. Another faction, consisting of several people, argues that the external site is information about the Great Flamewar. Thus, we really have a confusion between information and metainformation: if the site is used as a source for personal data on Smart it might be a poor source (I have only given it a cursory glance). If it is used as an example of the debate, or a database of the USENET posts (and it contains such a database) then that would be metainformation (information about information) of the flamewar. However, if so, that database should probably be linked to directly, bypassing problematic pages. Mikademus 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head. The bottomline is that the site was created by a known Smart detractor and net stalker. His entries are for the most part, libelous (e.g. from where did he get factual information that Smart suffers from NPD?), contain invalid links (e.g. Usenet posts) and which bear no relevance to the Smart bio.
That site is not information about the Great Flamewar. It is about Smart and one man's vendetta against him. It just so happens that Huffman vs Smart are the focus of said Great Flame War.
The site is not neutral and only presents a one sided bias of Smart's participation in said war. Apart from that, it is laced with libelous material which serve no purpose other than to discredit and/or character assassinate Smart.
The debate going on right here in this Smart Wiki bio, is turning out to be no different that the fracas on the USENET. The only difference being that acts of abuse and vandalism can be reverted, people can be banned etc. Others have tried in vain to get this page sorted out and failed. I'm left alone to see that it gets done properly. Particularly because I was around when the whole Huffman vs Smart thing started out so many years ago and I have first hand knowledge of what Huffman and his crew were and still doing. The only difference being that Smart - having resigned back in 1999 - is no longer involved. So they're trying to inject tainted history into his Wiki bio.
That is the long and short of it and the reason I've been fighting to not let that external link stand.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There's another problem here, and it's one you (no offense) perpetuate in your post when you say "if the site is used as a source for personal data on Smart." It isn't being used as a source, at least not at this time.
It's a link. Let's keep those ideas very separate, because Cmdr will attempt to merge them together at every opportunity.
Fox1 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my post in the straw poll below, where I responded to a compromise acceptable to Supreme Cmdr, I have created the stub page Derek Smart flamewar loosly based on the Wikipedia Military History Project's styleguide. Without being very versed in this conflict I have tried to keep it as neutral and factual as possible. I have not inserted any links in it. I would request the particiants here to examine it, and if you endorse it move all pertinent information and links there, and link to that page from this article. Mikademus 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We can work on it I suppose. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I removed the weasel words tag from the main page as the disputed section was moved to talk

Can someone explain why the Weasel Word tag is still on the main page?

Removed unverified sections

I have removed several sentences and sections that are not verified and do not have proper citations. I have also marked a number of sentences as needing citations. Do not add criticisms or negative statements without a citation from a reliable, strong source. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. Thanks! Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That settles what? "Do not add criticisms or negative statements without a citation from a reliable, strong source." does not mean that External Links must have a strong source - otherwise the Derek Smart AI would not point to a class report on AI. External Links have a different criteria: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link."
This Gamespy article contains references to the vast majority of the old "other issues" section, minus the PhD stuff and some other odds and ends. Before I go adding anything, is there any reason this wouldn't be considered a proper source?
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that WP:RS is a guideline not a policy, and I would appreciate if it the conversation kept in mind that it is not "law."
Additionally, as Jimbo has said [4], "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
This obviously applies to the whole of the article, but very specifically applies to items such as the comments about Bill Huffman that were added before the lock. Those items should have absolutely been removed before the lock, and I hope this illustrates why I was concerned at that time.
Fox1 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're just saying that now. Looking at the history of the page edits, you were one of the same people fighting to keep all that Huffman jargon in there and in some negative fashion.
Once again, I'm repeating this: Had you folks demonstrated good faith and not abused the Wiki guidelines to your own satisfaction, this page would have been finished by now. The Werewolves link clearly does not belong on his page. NOTHING on Huffman's page is credible or valid as a reliable source. Period. End of story. Anyone who wants to read that crap, can go to his page directly and do it from there. They don't need his Wiki page for that.
Lets move on with finishing up the page while working within Wiki guidelines. I'm not interested in getting into a fight with you over this. You tend to be very confrontationl and your exchange with BBlackmoor for example, demonstrates this quite clearly. In all this, we've come full circle.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what a surprise, you didn't read what I wrote. Nothing in there had anything to do with the werewolves link, but please, continue talking past me and invoking BB as your martyr despite the fact that he and I never had a "confrontation."
Any thoughts about the Gamespy article, Mr. Reading Comprehension, or are you going to continue to post the same thing over. And over. And over?
Fox1 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to get personal here, but Supreme_Cmdr, I have to agree that from your reply, it appears that you may not have read what Fox1 wrote. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course I read what he wrote. Do I have to reply to everything someone writes? No, I don't. I was replying to this excerpt Those items should have absolutely been removed before the lock, and I hope this illustrates why I was concerned at that time. Nothing else mattered to me, so I ignored them.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with including an external link that is not itself a reliable source. We can't include material from that external link here in Wikipedia, but linking the page doesn't break any rules. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is. Please read living persons. Here, let me quote it for you folks
Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's 
content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal 
lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately 
from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly 
on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Gee, when you thought he agreed with you it was all "link removed BY ADMIN!" and now you don't believe him?
Seems a tad inconsistent.
Oh, and, for the four-thousandth time, linked material is not subject to all policy for included material, but we can deal with that in the other section.
Fox1 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone posted on the main page: "Bill Huffman has collected various materials on Derek Smart and compiled them into a comprehensive site, which content is extremely critical of Smart. Smart himself vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination"
How do we know that Smart disputes the truthfulness and regards it as libel and character assassination? How do we know that he doesn't find the page humorously bizarre - I just saw: [5] "Derek Smart's Desktop Commander" today for the first time ever, and I (I am not Derek Smart) and it truly is (according to me) humorously bizarre.
We know because, well unless you've been living in cave for this past fourteen years, it is pretty common knowledge and which has been written about all over the place. What a stilly question.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did make a good faith effort to use google on "Derek Smart", "Follies", and "Bill Huffman", and there were some usenet postings, some message board posts, and the werewolves page of course, but I couldn't find anywhere else where Derek Smart claimed to have an opinion one way or another on the Follies page. I don't use MSN, does their search engine give more results?


Also, [User:Supreme_Cmdr] claims that he has "contacted him several times about this page and for clarification about certain things and he has expressed that he wants nothing to do with it." That doesn't seem very vehement. 75.17.140.41 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read everything carefully before posting. He did respond to my queries. He just doesn't want anything to do with this Wiki page. Just as he predicted, this page will never been finished.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for clarifying that, I mistakenly read it as he didn't want anything to do with the main Derek Smart Wiki page, instead of the correct reading that he didn't want anything to do with this Wiki page (the Derek Smart Wiki talk page).

Werewolves revisited

I note that the werewolves.org link is currently (07/30/2006) #11 in the search results for "Derek Smart". However, isn't a factual matter to note that Mr. Smart has a very public and vocal detractor and that a website full of material that may or may not be true exists? As long as no claim is made to the validity of the material within, I don't see what sense it makes to pretend, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that it doesn't exist. dfg 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem linking that site, but including material from it is not on as it is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Linking to unsourced material is the same as including material from it. Surely you know that? In fact, just to be sure, I just read the WP:RS again. The site contains nothing but libel and not a shred of material that can be considered relevant in any, way shape or form to the autobiography of this person.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no it's not the same. Please go ahead and verbatim quote where this is enunciated in a policy (again, RS isn't a policy, btw, it's a guideline).
Fox1 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong! Since you folks want to further taint the integrity of Wiki and misuse its policies and guidelines, here, let me quote some excerpts from WP:RS for you. Since it is a guideline, you can't have it your way and I can't have it my way. So, the interpretation of WP:RS is critical and crucial. Especially as it regards an autobiography of a living person. The Huffman link violates not only the policies but the guidelines of Wiki and cannot - and must not - be included in this autobiography.
  • An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
  • We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available
    by a reliable publisher.
  • Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
  • Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative
  • Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it,
  • Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.
  • Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.
  • A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
And last but not least:
  • Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. and that is policy.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To quote: "Well, that settles that. Thanks!" dfg 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Content that is linked to is not encyclopedic content. The guideline and policy you quoted refer exactly to content included in Wikipedia, not content linked. Thank you for making our point. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again: Linking to an external source that violates WP:RS is no different from cutting and pasting the contents of that source directly. Thats just common sense. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is neither common sense nor supported in any policy or guideline, unless I'm missing something which you'd like to cite? Stifle (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me just make this clear. The description of the Werewolves link is not npov. I will never allow it to stand. In fact, I wasn't the one (it was Mikademus) who made that original description to begin with; but I allowed it because it was npov. As soon as this page is unprotected, I will revert it back to his version.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have asked you this question multiple times on the Derek Smart talk page with no answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&diff=67361252&oldid=67343602 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=67252529 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=67184317
Usenet is not considered as verifiable by Wiki, so you cannot use any of the "dozens" of usenet postings + you do not consider the werewolves site to be truthful or verifiable, so what verifiable source are you using for your claim: "Smart himself vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination"?
Even if User:Mikademus made it first, that does not make it a verifiable Wiki source 75.17.140.87 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is simply untrue that Mikademus was the first one to describe the werewolves link as libelous. A quick check of the history of the page shows that on July 31 SupremeCmdr was the first to describe the link as libelous "Bill Huffman's collection of various materials on Derek Smart, with commentary extremely critical (and quite possibly libelous) of Smart." [6] User Ehheh tried to compromise with this description: "Bill Huffman's collection of various materials on Derek Smart, with commentary extremely critical of Smart. Smart disputes the truthfulness of this commentary." [7] The SumpremeCmdr stuck to his guns and changed the description to "Bill Huffman's collection of various materials on Derek Smart, with commentary extremely critical of Smart, who vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination." [8]. Only then on Aug 1 does Mikademus offer his edit: "Bill Huffman has collected various materials on Derek Smart and compiled them into a comprehensive site, which content is extremely critical of Smart. Smart himself vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination" [9] While this is the version that has been reverted to repeatedly, it is disingenuous to claim that Mikademus made the original description.--Beaker342 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. You've got it all wrong. How typical.
Nobody said that Mikademus was the first one to describe the site as being libelous. I was. And that was based on claims by Smart and others in various Usenet postings and forums.
A common fool with two brain cells will know what libel is when they see someone (Bill Huffman) printing that another person (Smart) is a Ph.D. fraud, forged racist email, has NPD etc with NO FACTS (as in WP:RS for those of you paying attention). It certainly doesn't take a Ph.D. to put that together. Especially when you consider the source (that being noted Smart stalker and #1 detractor, Bill Huffman) of the information and the history of it all.
The description to the link was altered after I grudgingly agreed to let it stand under WP:EL in the interest of peace. No, that wasn't enough. No sooner had I described the link according to the requirements of WP:EL that Mikademus made some of his own final and good edits. What happened next? These folks came back and removed the description (which had already survived several edits) because according to them, it was sympathetic of Smart. Well WTF???!! I say. The site is riddled with libel!! By allowing the link to stand, they're trying to pass off the site as a WP:RS which it is not.
And for this reason, this page, if unprotected, will never ever be sorted out
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How many times do you have to be reminded to remain civil?--Beaker342 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that some of you think that this is your living room. But please, when in doubt, refer to something called Free Speech. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:FREE versus WP:CIVIL - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 75.17.140.87, regardless who said the werewolves link was libelous, the link is not a reliable source. In this context, I would suggest the link should not be used for this article. Addhoc 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're mixing terminology, which IMO should be avoided, because it's been a contentious issue on this article. No one is suggesting that the werewolves site be used as a source. It is being included as an external link. Ehheh 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I agree there is a distinction. I am suggesting the site should not be an external link for this article because it contains unverified original research in accordance with guidance WP:EL, however I recognise there are other viewpoints. Addhoc 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the contents that should be in this page?

Just stumbled upon this page, and I'm a bit confused. If I'm not mistaken Derek Smart is a character surrounded by a lot of controversies, yet this article is very sparse in spite of what seems to be massive editing. Why is so little (virtually nothing) said about mentioned controversies, feuding, turbulence and other related data? It should be enough material for at least a section. Also, why are the only webpages linked to very one-sided? Mikademus 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

heh, you should've seen the page before. Anyway, you can't just go writing anything you like. If its not WP:RS it doesn't go in. Also, this page is an autobiography of a living person and as such as more stringenst guidelines on what can/cannot be added.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As Supreme Cmdr said, we cannot include comments or coverage of controversies unless we can back them up with reliable sources. As no such sources have been forthcoming, the controversies don't go in. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article notes, Derek Smart is an internet personality. Part of his fame comes from how he conducts himself on the internet. Yet since these flamewars have taken place on usenet and various message boards they cannot be mentioned because they are unreliable sources. That is, we cannot be certain that the flamewars were not conducted by impersonators. Of course, niether Mr. Smart nor his sympathizers would deny his participation in said flamewars. Indeed, the controversy around the Huffman page seems largely to revolve around his claims that Smart has NPD, not that the usenet posts are inaccurate. Still we need to get around the reliability issues and acknowledge Smart's internet presence. A number of the interviews linked in the article mention Mr. Smart's knack for getting into flamewars . For instance, in the armchairempire interview, Smart says that people, "attack me, Derek Smart, online, knowing they’re going to get a virtual verbal beating." Perhaps the interviews can be cited? --Beaker342 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted

I reverted some of the edits made recently by Supreme_Cmdr. Here is why. You may need to refer to this diff.

  • I replaced "all of the problematic issues" with "some of the major bugs". We are agreed and aware that the patch exists and was functional, but no source was cited that backed up the assertion that all the issues were fixed. The fact that one can just play the game is not sufficient, as that would be original research.
    • This wording could be reincluded if a citation from a reliable source was added to back it up.
The wording is still incorrect because even some of the major bugs is subjective. Where is the source that cites that such bugs were fixed? And the patch is where again? Here is one source about the release of that first game.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I replaced the link to gamerankings with one to metacritic as there did not appear to be consensus to have it appear. However, thinking again about it, neither seems unreasonable, so I will put the gamerankings link back alongside metacritic.
Why should there be a consensus to add a link? The reason I added the Gamer Rankings is because thats the one that was there since the beginning, is more widely accepted and contains many more reviews than Metacritic.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the citation of [10] for " Also new to 2005 is the fact that both of the 2005 games can currently only be purchased via online resellers" and replaced citation needed because that citation shows only that the games can be purchased via online resellers, not that they can 'only be purchased from online resellers. I did not change the statement to reflect the citation because the citation is also a link to a commercial site.
Semantics. It is widely known that none of his 2005 games were released on boxed retail form. This was already accepted in previous older edits. But no, you come in and remove it; having absolutely no knowledge about this developer or his games.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This statement needs a stronger citation, like a news release from the company.
Will look for one in a bit.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, I removed the extensive description of the link. Primarily, that description describes the content in a sympathetic point of view towards Smart, and secondarily, there is no citation to show that Smart regards it as libel and character assassination.
Though it is fully understood that the site is hosted by a known detractor and net stalker, is riddled with libel, you want it linke via WP:EL but you're concerned that it is sympathetic toward Smart? Are you for real?!?! The description of the link is just fine and is in line with WP:EL. You don't have to like it. It is what it is.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, please read and consider this before reverting again. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote about that link makes any sense whatsoever. The revert you made contained elements which were just fine. The commentary on the Huffman link was already changed several days ago. You didn't think to revert it. But as soon as I revert it to the previous version which someone else added, and made other changes, you go and revert it with wanton disregard and consideration.
I attempted to find a source for the claim, "Smart himself vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination" I did make a good faith effort to find a source using google on "Derek Smart", "Follies", and "Bill Huffman". There were some usenet postings, some message board posts, and the werewolves page of course, but I couldn't find anywhere else where Derek Smart claimed to have an opinion one way or another on the Follies page. I don't use MSN, does their search engine give more results?
If you make the claim, you have to provide verification. 75.17.140.41 02:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Listen to me: If you folks are trying to make this a personal issue since I'm the only one here trying to get this page on a NPOV keel, this issue will never ever be resolved. I have compromised to a large degree, but now I find that even admins are getting in on the act of making foolish reverts and edits just because they can and because I continue to challenge them on decisions that they make.
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. This is getting way out of control. Good thing that Smart and his fellows have no interest in the page or it would be a completely different story by now.
Word to the wise: The road paved by abuse of power is destined to have pot holes before long.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You aren't going to get your way by attacking everyone who disagrees with you and threatening to abuse Wikipedia. If you want to get banned you are doing a good job. --Ideogram 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain how this is personal? Why do you feel that you are the only one striving for WP:NPOV? Why do you feel that others reverting work are "foolish"? How does threatening to violate wiki policy help to get your point across?
"If you folks want to play grab ass over this, lets play." What does this mean?
"This is getting way out of control." What does this mean? Out of your control?
"Good thing that Smart and his fellows have no interest in the page or it would be a completely different story by now." What does this mean?
Sounds like a threat, but it's odd that User:Supreme_Cmdr states here and in his RfC that Smart has no interest in this article yet himself links to Smart posting that, "I'm this close to initiating a Wiki Jihad. I'm gonna start working on the fatwah next week." Odd choice of words for being dispassionate about it. dfg 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a threat (of course you'd think that) and since you obviously missed the grin in Smart's post on his board, coupled with the fact that no such action has been taken, you must not have anything much to say other than baseless conjecture. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Word to the wise: The road paved by abuse of power is destined to have pot holes before long." Huh? - Chris 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing I can say to reply to this statement that will both appease you and conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, therefore I will say nothing at all. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Collection of (perhaps) relevant links

I have taken a mild interest in this article and the tumultous situation surrounding it, especially when it comes to external links and sources, so I have tried to compile together links that might be used for article contents or be or other relevance. The pages linked to are of varying neutrality, but there are none that I spotted as outright diatribal though I haven't researched them in depth. If I find other perhaps-relevant links I will add them to the list, and it would be good if you other editors would do so too. Please note the nature of the site, but also, please do not turn the compilation itself into a heated discussion, place all (eventual) debate ofter the links to keep the structure of the collection (especially as/if it grows). Mikademus 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Derek Smart about Battlecruiser (interviews and similar sources):

You can find a whole lot more over here
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Other peoples' experiences of and takes on Derek Smart:


Encyclopedia entries: These should be useable as authoritative references. Well, perhaps the Asweres.com article is problematic since it seems to be taken from an older Wikipedia revision...


Sites critical of Derek Smart:


The first of these last two I think is just remnants of a previous werewolves host. Look through the current site (I can't from work right now) and see if you can't find the PhDFraud section there. - Chris 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Phd Fraud site is a mirror of the Huffman site and the About and Answers sites are both mirrors/ripoffs of Wikipedia. --Beaker342 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Answers is taken straight from an earlier Wikipedia article, but are you sure the About article is too? There are similarities, but not more than expected given normal biographical presentation and the subject matter. Mikademus 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have clicked on the wrong link by accident. The About site does indeed look different, but I am not sure that it's a reliable source. --Beaker342 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The answers.com site is not an unreliable source because the entries are input by individuals. Much like Wiki
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Me neither knows if it constitutes a reliable source, it is rather harshly phrased and does not pull its punches. However, it succintly summarises a common perception of Smart, does give some credit to him, and it is another online encyclopedia outlining the controversies around Derek Smart and the Great Flamewar, which might be useful at least as a precedent. The article body in its entirety:
“ Derek Smart (AKA Bane of Space Combat Sims) is a software designer and internet personality living in Florida. He best known as the eccentric creator of the Battlecruiser video game series.

Smart is most well known for his online presence, which has probably far eclipsed any merits his games have. He's participated in some of the larger flame wars in the gaming culture. He is well known for his aggresive and proud attitude, frequently manifested in his many online postings.

He is known to appear on any forum where his games are being criticised, mainly due to his habit of searching the internet for his own name, where he'll often create flame wars and ridicule all criticisms however much the said criticisms are justified. This eventually leads to Smart's supporters and detractors who are unrelated to the forum to sign themselves in just to appear and flame each other and ruin the forum thread.

Among the more bizarre conflagrations, Smart's alleged doctoral-degree (all public information is signed as "Derek Smart, PhD") was shown to likely be fraudulent. Despite extensive claiming that he indeed has a PhD, Smart himself has consistently failed to provide any proof at all to substantiate his claims.

His critics claim that his games are characterised as over-hyped, buggy, and have frustratingly complicated interfaces which require very large basic operating manuals. His supporters respond with the fact that he has managed to create and publish four games, which is four more games than most aspiring game developers ever get to create.

During production of Smart's first game, BC3K, he made incredible claims as to the up-coming game's features. The game was supposedly released by publisher Take Two before it was finished. It was riddled with bugs making it all but unplayable. Combined with the exceedingly complex gameplay and interface, the game was publically lambasted. Smart voiced his opinions on the supposed premature release numerously and strongly; eventually, a patch (v2.0) was released to fix most of the major bugs, but most had moved on and no longer cared by that point.

Smart's last game was Universal Combat, which received average to mediocre reviews in online game magazine reviews.

 ”

Mikademus 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

About's user agreement sums it up (I apologize in advance for the caps): "NEITHER ABOUT.COM NOR ITS AFFILIATES ENDORSE OR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OPINION, ADVICE OR STATEMENT ON THE SERVICE OR THE SITES."--Beaker342 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that About.com is not a suitable source. --Ideogram 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Smarts Games AI links need not be included in his biography. That smacks of the masturbatory excess by smarts cronies. It should be moved to the 3000ad article if needed. 220.247.249.190 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- AI links moved to 3000ad article 220.247.244.99 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

supreme_cmdr alias Derek Smart makes the claim that "For such an old product, to this day it remains in a top downloads list for the space-sim genre.". The fact that it remains in the top downloads is probably because of its age, and not because of its quality as Smart implies. I would like your views on changing this line to a more acceptable version, or else removing it from smarts biography and moving to the bc3000ad page. 220.247.247.106 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal analysis is that wikipedia has articles on far more notable and controversial figures than derek smart, but the fact that this page has turned into a hotspot is due to the same reason that the flame wars started. Ie Derek Smart's presence in the controversy. Derek Smart has joined in the editing of his own biography as supreme_cmdr (smart's own alias at this forums and many places) and because of his abrasive style his detractors join in too and it is very hard to get the page to a good standard as it currently is. 220.247.244.99 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been told before not to acuse me of being Smart. Your edits also point to the fact that you are most definitely either Huffman or one of his Usenet cronies because ALL your edits serve no purpose other than to kill the npov of Smart's page and to discredit him at every turn. Using terminology such as masturbatory just because you couldn't find anything to discredit his AI technology for. So you decide to move it our his bio, when in fact he is noted for his technologies.
So yes, you are one of the detractors who turned the Usenet into a war zone and you are doing the same thing here. Which explains why you are still editing as anon just in case an admin decides to ban your alis if you did register.
So it should come as no surprise that I've reverted all' your non-consensus changes to this page and others. I will continue to do that until the page gets full protection again.
Have a nice day, y'hear?
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind all editors here to focus on the contributions and not the contributors. Thanks. Nandesuka 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It fails for me to see how Derek Smart/Supreme_cmdr can allege that I am huffman, a look at my IP below will show that this is from Sri Lanka, and it is very unlikely that Huffman or one of his alleged cronies are residing in my beautifull country. My own goal is not to be anti smart but to present a balanced unbiased biography which gives things as they had happened. supreme_cmdr seems to be only intrested in white washing smart and denying any wrong doing by smart, when Smart clearly has been guilty of having a considerable role in both the flame wars, and in the take 2 debacles.

He alleges that Smart is known for his technologies, Smart has never demonstrated the presence of a neural net or advanced AI in his games either by a example of source code or by gameplay. Most of his game reviews have received average to mediocre ratings, most reviews have even questioned if any advanced AI is indeed present in his games. As such how can Smart claim to be known for his technologies.

Someone like Carmack John Carmack can indeed claim to be "known for his technologies", as he has specialised in pushing the envelope for 3d games for years all of which have been best sellers, but to say the same for Smart would be ludicrous.

Since Supreme_cmdr is so knowledgable about Smart, we would like him to document the so called "technologies", which smart is supposed to be known, which then we can consider for inclusion in his bio if necessary.

220.247.247.255 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The AI links are of dubious merit. None are noteworthy sources besides gamespot. Additionally, the three articles intended to prove that Smart's games feature neural nets all cite Smart hismelf or 3000ad as their sources for those claims. On this point it must be mentioned that Wiki guidlines frown on the use of a subject's personal website for the sourcing of claims that are either self-aggrandizing or tendentious, and in this case it is clear that they are. I would be fine with the article saying that Smart claims that his games have neural nets and that others dispute this claim, but in citing Smart's claim we must restrict ourselves to the press releases of Smart or his company. The other links merely repeat his claim without additional analysis.--Beaker342 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Why is it that Supreme_cmdr is Derek's handle on the official 3000ad web forums (http://www.3000ad.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)?

Quite a curious coincidence, wouldn't you say?137.166.4.130 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Very. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I believe that the main page no longer contains any weasel words and I am planning on removing the tag. Can anyone point out a usage of weasel words on the current main page.

Wikipedia founder seeks more quality

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Wikimania.html

Protected

Article is now protected. Please reach consensus on how to proceed. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request for un-protection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording of the werewolves link

Seeing as we have a consensus to include the link to werewolves.org, the main bone of contention here is how to describe it.

Saying that Derek Smart considers it to be character assassination, libel, etc. would need a reliable source. A first-party source would do, in my opinion. If Supreme Cmdr (or anyone else) can provide this, then I would withdraw any objections to the description being included (although it might be better as a paragraph in the article rather than in the external links section).

Remember that WP:RS does not apply to the content of sites linked from articles, in other words a page linked to does not need to consist entirely of content that would be suitable for use on Wikipedia.

Could people please propose possible wordings? Stifle (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a factual, yet brief description of the site. Actually, the way it is now, although I'd probably revise "(likely to be critical of Derek Smart)" to read simply "(critical of Derek Smart)" as it's not "likely" it's critical; it's a fact that it's critical. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree there is consesus. According to WP:RS and WP:EL the link should not be included. Addhoc 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll has 70% for the link. Also, I'm not aware of anyone besides User:Supreme Cmdr who is removing it. Is there a better measure of consensus? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Addhoc, I wouldn't say with certainty that the link passes the policy test. I think there is consensus on inclusion of the link based on what I said above, however I do see your point as well. Stifle brings up a point I think I've seen before (although I cannot find the source in policy) about WP:RS not applying to WP:EL, specifically in the context of an external link not being used as source material for statements made in the article, therefore it's not held to the same level of scrutiny. It's simply a "here's another point of view". - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if there is an edit war, many Wikipedians will decide not to get involved, which is fairly sensible. In this context, I agree that SC was the only user reverting, but the views of other users should be considered. Could you indicate where the straw poll discussion is? Lastly, a quote from WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"
Addhoc 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the poll is right above us. And yes, I've read the policy and I do see your point. Thing is I think the consensus is valuable, especially considering most here are not looking for the site to be used as source material; it's just a point of view and is especially notable (third result after this article and DS's own page on a Google search). I think applying this policy might be arguable; we can't say for sure if it's factually inaccurate. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. JBKramer raised some interesting questions here SC RfC Talk that suggest he also isn't convinced the link should be included. I agree "we can't say for sure if it's factually inaccurate", however we could describe the claims as unverified. Addhoc 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Except for his last edit, JBKramer pretty much said what you are saying now. All good points. His last edit does bring up a point in that the link is actually mentioned from the gamespot article. The article actually atrributes it as "good summary". I don't think this is a reason to exclude the link; it might even strengthen the case. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so 7 users want the link and 5 have doubts. I don't consider this to be a consensus. Also there are other users who interpret WP:EL in a similar way, suggesting that web sites that include unverified claims should not be included. Addhoc 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
To pick nits, 7 users say yes, 3 say no (you just joined that list), and 1 is on the fence. Agreed, though, the consensus is no longer clear.
"Also there are other users who interpret WP:EL in a similar way, suggesting that web sites that include unverified claims should not be included.". Yes, and I can understand that point of view. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is just a circular argument.
  • WP:EL precludes that link from being allowed
  • WP:BLP has clear guidelines for editing biographies such as this
  • WP:AB has clear guidelines for editing biographies such as this
  • The Guidelines for controversial articles has guidelines for editing articles such as this
There is no consensus. The link is blatantly libelous and cannot be allowed in the Wiki article. Thats just the long and short of it. This is a link with an article by Bill Huffman, noted Derek Smart detractor and net stalker, that claims Derek Smart suffers from NPD. Seriously. And thats a valid point of view? Are you KIDDING me? Thats like saying Nuggetboy here, is closet transvestite. He may be just that, but we don't know. So, what if I created a page that claims just that, then linked to it from his Wiki page? Of course he won't be much affected since his identity is unknown. But that is not the same thing with Derek Smart who this Wiki bio is about.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Derek Smart himself is more than welcome to sue this Huffman person for libel and get the werewolves site taken off the net, if that's the case, though the site seems largely to be made up of Usenet postings and personal opinions, neither of which constitute libel. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the rest of the internet for possible legal infractions. That's someone else's job. Since it's an offsite link, WP:BLP doesn't have anything to say, other than we can link to Derek's blog or personal site, and unless you're claiming to be Derek himself, WP:AB doesn't apply. Regarding WP:EL, the argument is whether it contains 'factually inaccurate material or unverified original research', since otherwise it would easily fit under the section saying that "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link [should be provided in the external links section]". I'll contend that the site's main factual assertions are that certain usenet flamewars took place, with copies of the posts themselves, and which I don't think anyone disputes. I'm not sure what the WP threshold for 'verified original research' is, in regards to those... --Aim Here 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
To say that nothing on the site constitutes libel is just a blatant display of ignorance. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor what libel is. You might want to read up on that, and the Huffman site, before making such obviously stupid comments. Everyone is an attorney. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Inlcuding you, apparently. The point is that that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. The point isn't even whether everything on the site is "true." The only question is whether it is a reliable source for the statement "Derek Smart has been involved in many flamewars over the years". Nandesuka 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes Nandesuka, I agree. However, the information contained in the site is unverified, consequently this isn't a reliable source and should not be included. Addhoc 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it means that material from it should not be quoted into this article. Not that it shouldn't be linked. Unless I'm missing something... Stifle (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can it be agreed that "the Werewolves site is a large collection of flamewars, satire and articles related to DS"? One can argue that since Huffman is either a participant or instigator of flamewars with DS, that merits an external link to Werewolves, regardless of whether or not items on the site are unverified. In describing DS flamewars without a link to whom he was engaged in conflict with is one sided. Tomlouie 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to claim that the werewolves site contains unverified material. The material is supposed to be USENET postings and it can easily be verified with a archive of USENET posting like google groups. If Smart or supreme_cmdr makes the allegations that the are false, it would be nice if they could show a example posting on the werewolves site which does not match the google groups archive, which would show that huffman modified it. The werewolves site is currently the most exhaustive analysis of Smart's role in the flamewars, and it should be compulsive reading for anyone interested in Smart, thats why it is included. 220.247.249.23 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that Usenet and similar postings do not pass the WP:RS test, also means that anything that links to them, don't either. Even a close scrutiny of WP:EL causes it to fail that particular litmus test. You can't bypass the Wiki guidelines via proxy. Apart from that, it is not just Usenet postings that are on the site and you very well know that. Not to mention that Huffman's site is not about the flamewar. It is specifically about Derek Smart. BIG difference. It just so happens that Derek Smart, Huffman and a bunch of other anti-social nitwits, were part of said flamewar.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is completely fallacious. It would mean that every article on Wikipedia which used a source that linked to any usenet post would have to be removed. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the werewolves site contains material other than USENET postings. There are a significant number of statements about Derek Smart that constitute unverified research. Consequently, this isn't a reliable source. Addhoc 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Save your breath. They ALL know that, but choose to ignore it. Hence this debacle. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I completely agree with it. The site is not a reliable source, but that doesn't preclude it from being linked. It just means that its content, opinions, statements etc. can't be included in the article. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"
If we agree the site contains unverified research, then we should not includes this link. Addhoc 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could have a example of what are considered considerd unverfiable research in that site. Even if that is the case i see no reason why it precludes linking to the site from the article. What we all must realise is that wiki guidlines are just that, they are guidlines, if we strictly apply them to articles then articles would be butchered mercilessly.

If USENET is not considered a reliable source then why on earth does the Torvalds article contain the following "In August of 1991, Linus publicized [11] his creation on the USENET newsgroup comp.os.minix." That should be removed too, as a link to google groups are unverified according to the wiki. There is nothing to prove that Torvalds posted that message about the linux kernel years ago. If torvalds USENET posting can be justified to be included the way it is, then why do we want to have a different set of rules for Smart, were every USENET link for Smart is banned, but for Torvalds it is allowed.

Also for example take Jerry Falwell [12], a far more noted and controversial figure than Derek Smart. Falwell's page contains a link to a site critical of him "Fallwell.com – Christopher Lamparello's webpage critical of Falwell", which can again be argued to contain unverified material on Falwell. However that has not precluded it being linked to in the article.

So rather than have inconsistant double standards we should go through articles of a similar nature on the wiki and let at the very least the link to the werewolves site be in Smart's biography, just as the link to fallwell.com is on Falwell's page.

220.247.244.90 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I would suggest this could be regarded as unverified research "his game is known as one of the worst unmitigated disasters ever released". Essentially you are, by your own admission, going directly against Wikipedia policy. Personally, I would prefer if policy was strictly applied and large amounts of cruft was, as you put it, butchered mercilessly. Anyway, in the context of this article, I confirm there is no consensus regarding the werewolves link. The burden of responsibility is always on the users wishing the material was included. Consequently, at present, the link should not be included. Addhoc 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly counts as original research? How do we separate opinion and research? The Huffman site contains accurate usenet postings with a running commentary. So far, so good. It also contains a page where he speculates that Smart has NPD, and is upfront about the fact that in doing so he is engaging in nothing more than speculation. He makes no truth claims. Is his specualtion opinion or research? It's difficult for me to parse right now. --Beaker342 22:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research is defined by WP:OR. We separate opinion and research in accord with WP:NPOV and WP:V. The Huffman site isn't a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. Addhoc 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


How can Addhoc make the claim that " The burden of responsibility is always on the users wishing the material was included. Consequently, at present, the link should not be included.", as the last time the Straw poll was taken, the majority wished for the link to be included in the bio. 220.247.248.26 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the statement "Ok, I would suggest this could be regarded as unverified research "his game is known as one of the worst unmitigated disasters ever released", what we have to realise is that it is actually correct. BC 3000ad was one of the most overhyped games, Smart having had the luxury of working on it for over 7 years, Smart himself did nothing to help matters by boasting about neural networks etc, but when the game was released it was unplayable with frequent crashing, even a click caused the game to crash, there was no functional manual too, and every reputed game reviewer lambasted the game. Here are some examples...

[13] [14] [15]

So thw fact that his game was one of the "worst unmitigated disasters", is actually verifiable results as evidenced by the links above. 220.247.248.26 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Evidence

According to Burden of Evidence, "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain". Addhoc 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)