Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-12 Derek Smart external link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Derek Smart article, specifically the external links section; discussion on the talk page.
Who's involved?
Myself, User:Bblackmoor, User:Supreme_Cmdr (blank user page; see contribs here: [1]), User:Durova (minimally), several anon ips
What's going on?
The debate is over whether this link should be included in the external links section. The clash is one of perspectives. Namely, that BBlackmoor and Supreme_Cmdr claim that links should be verifiable, while I claim that external links do not have to be verifiable, only notable and relevant. I tried getting them (BBlackmoor in particular) to respond to requests for mediation to help move this forward but was largely ignored. Since official mediation requires both parties to be voluntary, I'm turning to the Mediation Cabal. :) User:NicholasTurnbull has offered to take up the case.
What would you like to change about that?
Well, obviously I want the link included. I think it may even deserve it's own (NPOVly described) section in the article. It's clearly an important part of Derek Smart's history (it's the number one hit on Google for Derek Smart). Generally speaking, however, I'd like consensus of some kind. Clearly the three of us most involved in this debate do not represent the community as a whole well, so I'd like either one group or the other (yes, myself included) to change their minds or for enough Wikipedians to express their opinions that consensus is plain.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
No need for discretion at the moment, but feel free to reach me at User talk:Hinotori.

[edit] Responses by involved parties

I am responding at the request of NicholasTurnbull. Frankly, I see no need for mediation, but I don't object to it.

As for the link Hinotori is so desperate to include, it's so far past being merely POV that it deserves its own acronym. It's a web site filled with overt, deliberate falsehoods, constructed by some guy who has a history of stalking the subject of the article (Derek Smart) on which Hinotori would like to add the link. Linking to a private individual's web page that exists for no other purpose than to slander another person is hardly notable, at least within the context of the Derek Smart article. It may be notable within the context of Stalking, or within the context of the author of the linked page: if the link were included in a such an article, where the actual verifiability of the site's contents would not be an issue, I would have no objection. Aside from the issues of NPOV and verifiability, the linked page is not a respected media outlet (which places it in contrast to sites such as theforce.net, to which Hinotori has compared this "werewolves" site). The upshot of this is that Hinotori's link is vehemently, malicious, slanderously POV (and if anything, I am guitly of understatement here), it is not notable in the conext of the article where Hinotori would like to place it, it does not stem from a respected media outlet, and it is not only not verifiable, but largely consists of claims which can easily be disproven by referring to respected media outlets. It would be nothing less than irresponsible to condone adding information like this to Wikipedia.

All of that aside, if the community consensus is that Wikipedia is, in fact, a soapbox, then I will abide by community consensus and allow the irresponsible addition to remain. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-16 T 20:38 Z

With all respect, I think it's somewhat insulting for Bblackmoor to say that he sees no need for mediation. It's clear there's a conflict here and that we're unable to see eye to eye; assuming that mediation isn't necessary is almost to say that my opinion (and the opinions of any who agree with me) doesn't matter, which, unfortunately, seems consistent with the condescending tone that he has been using throughout this ordeal. Furthermore, I object to the implication that opposition to his perspective is the equivalent of saying that "Wikipedia is a soapbox." Not only is that an obvious straw man fallacy, but it seems like a passive-aggressive attack on the knowledge and good intentions of those who feel differently than he does. Those objections aside, I'll summarize my arguments here as simply as I can:

1. Within the context of the Derek Smart article, Werewolves is notable because:
2. Werewolves is germane because:
  • Derek Smart is undeniably more notable specifically for the controversy surrounding his online antics, than for his games themselves. Regardless of the verifiability of the content of Werewolves, it deals with the very issues that have made Smart famous or infamous (depending on your POV). In a way, Werewolves is more relevant to Derek Smart than any other external link because it specifically deals with the flame wars and controversy that made him well-known to begin with.
3. There is ample precedent in Wikipedia for including POV, unverifiable external links due only to their notability and relevance. Examples include:
4. Even if we were to consider verifiability for a moment, much of Werewolves' content are Usenet posts which can be searched in the archive. The private emails are, of course, unverifiable, but readers probably can discern that for themselves, and even if not, readers read content outside Wikipedia at their own risk.

In conclusion, leaving out Werewolves is an extreme disservice to the reader who comes to the article to presumably learn more about Derek Smart, specifically what Derek Smart is most notable for.

Additionally, I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I don't have a personal grudge against Smart seeing as I've never played any of his games or participated in the flame war. My persistence in this is based largely on two reasons. One, that I, of course, genuinely feel that the article should include this link. And two, (more importantly) this is a serious question about general policy concerning external links. I feel the results of this discussion here may have farther-reaching impacts than just this article. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 02:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Private emails and newsgroup messages are not credible sources, and this "werewolves" site is less credible than most. It's just that simple. (And you ought to give the personal attacks a rest. They do nothing to support your argument.) -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-19 T 08:18 Z
If you can point out a single "personal attack" that I've made above, I'm more than willing to apologize and take it back. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 21:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well, be disingenuous. I suppose it doesn't matter, either way. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-19 T 22:07 Z
First, you accuse me of personal attacks. Then when I ask you to point them out to me, so that I can genuinely apologize for/retract them, you skip that step and go straight to calling me disingenuous, itself a personal attack. Doesn't your behavior seem at all odd to you? -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There's just no way to win with you. If I respond to your snide comments, you complain about it. If I don't respond to your snide comments, you complain about it. From here on out, I am only responding to your edits, and to your arguments which directly support your position. And, having already done that, I have nothing further to say at this time. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-19 T 23:37 Z
Well, since you refuse to point out what exactly these "snide comments" are that I've made, I'm a bit at a loss as to how you've "responded" to them. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly content with making snide comments of your own, but I won't bother asking for an apology for those since I doubt that'd be fruitful in any sense of the word. By all means, respond to the arguments, because, contrary to your saying so, you haven't done so yet. My arguments are about why external links do not have to be credible sources (it's an external link, not a reference; big difference). Your argument (singular) is that it has to be credible and it isn't. See the problem? We're arguing past each other. I've addressed your argument by challenging the foundation on which it lies and backing it up with ample evidence of precedent; that's what you need to respond to. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw from mediation. In the scheme of things, this "dispute" is a merely a symptom of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and I have come to the conclusion that it is beyond my ability to fix or ameliorate. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-20 T 00:36 Z

I am responding at the request of NicholasTurnbull. I have to second sentiments echoed by Bblackmoor. We have debated this issue already and the comments in the talk section of the Derek Smart page are basically my comments on the matter. The link doesn't fit in with any Wiki guidelines that I am aware of.
Also, Hinotori's comment "In conclusion, leaving out Werewolves is an extreme disservice to the reader who comes to the article to presumably learn more about Derek Smart, specifically what Derek Smart is most notable for." is exactly what is wrong with having that link there because Derek Smart is not notable for 99% of the entries on that Werewolves page. He is a famous and outspoken game developer. That is what he is notable for. Supreme_Cmdr 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an outright fallacy. There are hundreds of games more notable than Battlecruiser whose developers aren't known very well at all. Derek Smart has achieved the degree of notoriety he has due to the way he conducts himself online, for better or worse. The Werewolves site is obviously an extremely slanted perspective regarding that, but the subject matter itself is in fact relevant to the controversy that makes him notable. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thats complete nonsense and you know it. Derek Smart is not famous because of how he conducts himself online at all. It just goes to show that you know absolutely NOTHING about the gaming industry nor where Derek Smart came from. Derek Smart gained notoriety from way back when his first highly publicised (by his then publisher, Take Two) product, tanked spectacularly. When everyone expected him to disappear (like most one product wonders), he didn't. He stuck around. His online persona is no different from any other person who finds themselves having to defend their works and person against an online onslaught. It just so happens that while most tend to do it under the guise of anonymity or not at all, he chose to confront detractors head-on. That is the extent of it.
The Werevolves site has nothing to do with how Derek Smart conducts himself online.
Explain these to me please -: what does Bill Huffman claiming that Smart has NPD and which he posts a fact (which it isn't) got to do with Smart's online persona? Is Huffman a psychologist? What about the much debated issue of the racist emails to Smart by one of Huffman's buddies? And which Huffman then distorted by accusing Smart of forging the email (a fact that most sensible people disputed for months on end) when Smart contacted the police? Obviously Huffman did it to absolve himself of blame by guilt of association. I could cite many, many examples of the material on Huffman's site and which are neither verifiable nor based on facts. Yes, there are a few authentic posts made by Smart, but they are no more relevant than anyone doing a Google search for them. Since they are already on Google and can be easily referenced, why did Huffman not just link to them instead so that the actual data on Google remains preserved? The answer is because they have either been altered or the topic flow distorted by presenting one man's twisted and flawed perspective of the target of his stalking activities.
Bill Huffman is a net stalker who crossed the line one too many times. He is no better than a pornographer who creates distorted works based off of authentic works. Also his is not the only site that talks about Smart or his products. It just so happens that Google picks up that site first because apart from site tags his persistent stalking of Smart and references to that site (by both detractors and supporters alike) make it more popular. Anyone wanting to see what that site is about can reach it by typing in Derek Smart's name. Another reason why it has no place in the Wiki. - Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You and Bblackmoor share a curious habit of resorting to attacks on the person when attacks on the argument fail. Even more curious is the fact that your first two attacks (in the first three sentences) contradict each other. Either I know what I'm saying is nonsense and I'm being deceptive, or I don't really know anything at all, in which case I'm just ignorant. Which is it? Personally, I'd rather be called ignorant than be called a liar, but neither implication is particularly appreciated. That said, I think I know more about the gaming industry than you would like to believe; not that it matters since most of the information in the first paragraph of your argument is in the article itself. Do you think the rest of us can't read? The events you describe happened some time ago; the reason Derek Smart's name is still well known even now is because of the ensuing flame war(s) that erupted. Not just small, easily forgotten exchanges in some long lost, lonely back alley of the internet, but gigantic flame wars which, in size, rivalled any of those past on Usenet and which spread from forum to forum. I don't care who started it or who was responsible for keeping it going. I wasn't there, and I have no real envy of those who were. But that it happened and that's largely why Derek Smart's name is notable is (easily verifiable) fact. The fact that Google turns it up as the very first match for "Derek Smart," even higher than the website for his own games, is almost inarguable proof of this.
As for the Werewolves site not having anything to do with how Smart conducts himself online, I'm at a loss. An overwhelming majority of the site deals with Smart's forum posts and emails; how is that not relevant to Smart's online conduct?
Regarding verifiability, I have already established why the information on the site does NOT have to be completely verifiable (an argument that third-parties here seem to agree with and that both you and Bblackmoor have yet to answer). That aside, much of the site's content consists of Usenet posts which can be looked up in the archives. I find your argument that Huffman's inclusion of material searchable on Google is evidence of deception to be bizarre. Much of the information on Wikipedia comes from Google. Should we throw all that out too since it's already available somewhere out there on the web?
I'm not defending Huffman or Smart, or anyone for that matter. I'm not even saying that the majority of Huffman's material is verifiable (though much of it may very well be; see above). I'm saying the site is clearly notable and germane; as long as the reader is warned in advance of the issues of bias and verifiability that are inherent in the website (which should be common sense anyways, since the site is obviously authored by a rabid detractor), the link is fair game. Your argument that links that can be found using Google shouldn't be included also strikes me as profoundly strange. ALL the other external links (Smart's website, the website for his games, his interviews) can be found on Google; in fact, almost all of the external links on Wikipedia can be found on Google, since Google is one of the most accepted online indicators of notability and relevance. Should we throw those out too?
By the way, I feel it's worthy of noting here that Derek Smart and this argument's related pages are the ONLY pages that you've ever editted, and that the screenname you're using is the same one that Derek Smart himself uses on several forums, including the official forum for his games. Between the two of us, I wonder who is really more biased.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 14:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

Well, Wikipedia:External links agrees with Hinotori, in my view.--Sean|Black 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd prefer to consider myself an external commentator. I found the page by responding to the requests for comment. As I stated on the talk page, I don't see a problem with linking to this page. Durova 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do see a problem with BBlackmoor's behavior. WP:No personal attacks Durova 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree per Sean Black that the link can be included. In my opinion, it deserves to be in the external links. Jacoplane 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

First, let me give the short answer: I have always believed that the link was an appropriate inclusion, per policy and in the interest of making the article a useful piece.

Now, the other stuff. Hi, I was alerted to this issue by another user as I have, in the past, been involved in editting this article, although I have not been involved with these particular users or this particular incarnation of this article.

Both BBlackmoor (hey BB! we have to stop meeting like this!) and Suprm Cmdr (or however that's abbreviated) seem to be confusing policy on the inclusion of external links with policy on the inclusion of text within WP articles, and, because of this, hardly any of the argument that has occurred thus far is useful or germane to the issue at hand.

Also, am I the only one who can't shake the feeling that Supreme Commander is... personally invested in this article, to be euphemistic? Really? Nobody gets that vibe?

Fox1 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I've been trying to point that out the entire time. If you read the talk page and the arguments here, every request that I make to Bblackmoor and Supreme_Cmdr to answer the distinction between external links and article text along with the examples I provide has been largely ignored. As for Supreme_Cmdr perhaps being personally invested, see my last comment. Thanks for giving your opinion. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Bblackmoor seems to have left Wikipedia anyway (btw, nice quotes on his user page: the vast majority of the human race should not be allowed near a computer (...) the inmates rule the asylum (...) I have fought an uphill battle against the lunatic fringe), and Supreme_Cmdr only edits articles on Derek Smart Special:Contributions/Supreme_Cmdr and seems to have a personal vendetta going on. As far as I am concerned, both are not interested in discussion, but rather hammering their own message... which is a bad thing. Onomatopoeia 05:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as one of those opposed to the link has left the project, the other seems personally invested and uninterested in civil discussion, and that four of the third parties who have commented here, including two administrators, support the inclusion of the link, can we say that this case should be closed? As an involved party, I wouldn't dare make that decision myself. I started this mediation with the honest intention of getting Bblackmoor and Supreme_Cmdr to some kind of agreement, but that seems totally impossible at this point. However, it does seem like a majority opinion has formed here to put the link back in (and Fox1 has already done so). -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that a group of anons (which could very well be any of you, Huffman himself or his same cohorts who started this on the Usenet) is sufficient to draw that conclusion. Though I'm sure that you would like to think so. This is an example of people assuming that strength in vocal numbers means something. It just amounts to the same people doing the shouting...even if they're all wrong and have an agenda. It is the classic mob mentality.
Several Wiki policies prohibit the inclusion of that link. You had withdrawn from the cabal but now you seem to have changed your mind again...right at the time when Fox1 and a bunch of anons decide to jump in. This is exactly what we said we didn't want and if Smart shows up and others follow suit, these talk pages will be like the Usenet they ruined.
I am a gamer. I only play certain games that I have an interest in. I only post in the Smart Wiki because it is the only Wiki that I can contribute to in a factual verifiable fashion because like a lot of gamers I was on the Usenet back when this all started. You can look up my Usenet handle as I was involved in a similar debate with Huffman when he took his personal attacks on me into the real world. I was one of several who actually reported him to the security department at his employer. He was almost fired and thats when he stopped posted while at work and from their internet account. So none of you can't tell me anything that I don't already know. I was there, unlike you folks who don't appear to have any idea about how it all started and just want to further promote Huffman's libelous hate site.
Anyway, I have sent email to Smart. Lets see what happens now. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem interested in discussion, compromise, reaching concensus or learning about WP policy. Unfortunately, those things are pretty much the whole of the mediation process. Again, I'm not what weight your personal involvement is supposed to bring to your arguments. You think the site is "libelous" and full of hate. I'm pretty sure we all get that. Unfortunately, that's subjective and unproven. You're inflexible and there's not much mediator involvement here, so I guess this is going to work itself out on the page. *shrug*
Fox1 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It is convenient for you to say that I'm not interested in discussion when in fact this matter has been in ongoing discussion for weeks now. I'm not the only person disgusted by this whole thing. But unlike Bblackmoor I'm not going to quit until a mediator decides the outcome. Your talk points on Smart's page are evidence enough that you and Hintori have an agenda. You talk about one thing then do something different (as per the description of the link). Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't discussion if you're not interested in exchange of ideas, it's rhetoric.
Also, mediators don't "decide outcomes." You really need to educate yourself on policy, not just for the sake of working with others, but so that you don't spend time on something (like mediation) when its not moving towards the outcome you want. If you want someone to enforce a resolution to conflict, that would be arbitration, not mediation. Mediation is voluntary and non-binding.
Fox1 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Get your facts straight, Supreme_Cmdr; this is getting ridiculous. First off, I NEVER withdrew from the mediation process. I have been inactive lately due to real life concerns, but, unlike Bblackmoor, I have been invested in finding a resolution to this conflict since day one. Secondly, NONE of the people I referred to are anons at all. Two of them are administrators: User:Sean Black and User:Jacoplane. The other two, User:Fox1 and User:Durova are both experienced users and editors, which is far more than you can say for yourself. Your revelation that you participated in the Usenet debates only solidifies the suspicion that you have an agenda here. I'm not sure what you're getting at by telling us that you've "emailed Smart." Are we supposed to be intimidated by this statement? Wikipedia has articles on far more notable and controversial figures than Derek Smart. If you believe that his surely biased opinion on his own article or the equally biased opinions of his followers will impact the article itself, then not only are you wrong but you are clearly acting in bad faith. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 08:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to your circular arguments, unwarranted and unverifiable accusations etc. The point of the matter is that the Werewolves link has no place in the Derek Smart page because it does not meet with the requirements of Wiki guidelines. And just because I was around when the whole Usenet issue began doesn't make any difference and certainly does not point to my having an agenda. Thats like saying if I were around for the civil war, I have no business debating it or setting the record straight just because I was there. Ludicrous. Simply ludicrous. And your statements are in the same vein as the rest of the unfounded and ludicrous statements that you and Fox1 have made about this issue while ignoring the facts and the rules of Wiki. Even the founder of Wiki edited his own entry and was involved in other Wiki related controversies. Where were you then? I don't see you making a single post in his Wiki entry. Perhaps you should go over there and accuse him of having an agenda. My reason for pointing out that I was around is to illustrate that I know of that stalker Huffman's activities against Smart and others (e.g. Dan Brooks) and that his website is dedicated to libeling Smart and is dedicated to his stalking activities. I'm sure that if he was a child pornographer you wouldn't be so anxious to defend him and his activities. As much as you now know about Huffman why have you not created a Wiki entry for him? Come to think of it, you might want to do that, catalog his activities, then link to his Wiki entry from Smart's Wiki. That could be an acceptable compromise I think. Then you are linking to an individual whose only claim to his short fame is stalking and libeling Smart. It would be like linking to Lennon's killer's Wiki from within Lennon's Wiki page. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_Cmdr, you have claimed "Some of the emails are also clear forgeries (compare to their Usenet originals) " [2]. Can you please point me to one of the clear forgeries on the Werewolvessite that was forged from the Usenet originals?.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll handle this one, because I spoke to Hinotori about this before he placed the case request. I'll start the process shortly. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page messages left on article and for named parties. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)