Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

The locus of this dispute is at the article Derek Smart (currently protected). Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has edited the article since September 2005, and has engaged in a super-slow revert war since then. It should be made clear that although Derek Smart is known to have used screen named derived from the words "Supreme Commander", there is no evidence that this user is Derek Smart. Also notable is that supreme_cmdr has only edited articles with regard to Derek Smart's biography and related to the battlecruiser franchise.

Observation: This matter was the subject of a request for arbitration, but the request was rejected.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. All of the history of Derek Smart documents the revert war over the last 11 months. Notice that while a multitude of users are removing User:Supreme_Cmdr's edits, very few are restoring them.
    Reverting to restore content that had been removed by an apparent consensus:
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]
    Adding content without citing a reliable source (particularly relevant due to his vehement criticism of others for unsourced comments):
    1. [7]
    Blanking or removing content which had an apparent consensus for inclusion:
    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]
    7. [14]
    8. [15]
    9. [16] (here referring to a link that violated WP:NOR, but Wikipedia policies do not apply to external links)
    10. [17]
    11. [18]
    12. [19]
    13. [20]
    14. [21]
    15. [22]
    16. [23]
    Using misleading edit summaries, generally by making edits to two sections but only mentioning one:
    1. [24]
    2. [25]
    Using a sympathetic point of view instead of a neutral one:
    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    Demonstrating an intention to disregard consensus if it is against him:
    1. [28]
    Incivility:
    1. Refers to a previous edit as "useless" [29]
    2. Refers to a previous question as "stilly" [sic, assume "silly"] [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]
    Using edit summaries to pass comments or carry on debates:
    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]
    Removing sources for material critical of Smart:
    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    Adding irrelevant external links:
    1. [38] (see very end)
    2. [39] (see very end)
    Introducing original research:
    1. [40]
    2. [41] ("factually correct" is original research)
    Invalid use of minor edits:
    1. [42]
    Referring to valid and/or good-faith edits as vandalism:
    1. [43]
    Vague threats and disparaging comments:
    1. [44]
    Misconstruing policies and guidelines as requiring content policies to apply to linked websites also:
    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    Blanking or removing other users' comments from talk pages:
    1. [47]
    2. [48]
  2. Additionally, Supreme Cmdr appears to believe that reverting is a valid method of editing and may view it as a way of having his preferred version of the page displayed by attrition [49]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:EL
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:BLP
  5. WP:ES
  6. WP:CON
  7. WP:EW
  8. WP:EYV
  9. WP:RS
  10. WP:V
  11. WP:DIS
  12. WP:PP

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Talk:Derek Smart
  2. User talk:Supreme Cmdr
  3. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-21 Revert war on Derek Smart page (rejected by the MedCab as outside jurisdiction)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute} (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nuggetboy 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    You have been editing that page using this alias. Please don't change it because then to a casual observer,
    you may appear to be someone else added to this dispute. If you wanted to edit under Chris, you should've
    thought about that long before making months of edits under the Nuggetboy alias.
    And before you go off and start yelling about policy, poor form and all that, note that my edit to your alias for the purpose of this RFC is no different from me adding a note about and unsigned (usually anon) or incorrectly signed edit. I only make this edit for the purposes of this RFC so that when it comes under review, the reviewer will be able to identify you as the same Nuggetboy who has been editing the Derek Smart page this past months.
    Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    For the purpose of clarity and executive summary, the note in question is that User:Nuggetboy usually signs as Chris. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    No he doesn't. He only recently started doing that. Which is why I edited it. My God man, do you ever pay attention to anything?!? Its bad enough that you injected yourself into this conflict with blatant and wanton disregard for policy and history, abused your powers as admin etc. But to boot, you're just making statements which have little or no merit. I can't wait until you're stripped (my next goal once this Derek Smart page is sorted out) of your admin rights. Others have been stripped of that priviledge for less. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Beaker342 02:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Nandesuka 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. TheronJ 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Tomlouie | Talk 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

For many months now there has been a dispute on the Derek Smart page. I and several others (e.g. BBlackmoor) have tried in vain to keep the page on an npov slant.

The anons and others seem to want to use this person's page as their personal soapbox and battleground.

To the extent they - and the admins who have no correct views of the matter - have blatantly abused the Wiki process, ignored the guidelines and continue to defame the very spirit of Wiki. I believe that these admins were called in to the page by either their friends or associates and in a mob mentality they have sought to further abuse their powers.

Derek Smart is a living person and a noted computer gaming industry veteran with a colourful history. Be that as it may, these people have sought to do the same thing they did on Usenet many years ago that caused him to leave. That being abuse and wanton disregard for policy.

The hotly contested Werewolves link is nothing but a libelous site with material that is neither humorous, nor factual or credible. Certain entries include saying that Derek Smart suffers from a psychological illness (NPD), that he forged racsist email etc. All which he has vehemently denied on Usenet and on forums. Unfortunately since those are not WP:RS they could not be included in the link.

In a twist, even though the Werewolves links bear little or not relevance or significance to Derek Smart, they now have the link added to his page, under the guise of WP:EL. I accepted this in the spirit of good faith. But when it came to describe the link accurately as per WP:EL they again rejected the description added by another new editor, Mikademus. Since these detractors are the controlling parties on this page, while others like me have resigned in disgust, they have further sought to push their agenda and consensus by erecting a kangaroo court (such as this ridiculous RFc) in order to show their strength in numbers.

In truth, the Werewolves link bears absolutely no relevance to the Derek Smart page. It is libelous site and Derek Smart in the past had taken legal action against the site author and aleged Net stalker, Bill Huffman, on several occassions. ALL of which led to the closure of the offending sites. Since he would simply erect a new site on a new ISP, Derek Smart stopped pursuing him and so the site remains where it is today.

No RFc or ban is going to take away from the fact that these people know exactly what they are doing and it boils down to nothing but an agenda to continue to taint this game developer's biography on Wiki. I have since composed a letter to Jimmy Wales because Derek Smart is a noted industry celebrity and his biography must be npov and free from vandalism, untruths and libel (even in links).

I have also alerted Derek Smart (via email) to this Wiki but other than posting on his website, has shown no interest in getting involved. He personally told me in email that I was wasting my time and that the Wiki page would end up being a mirror of what he faced on Usenet from these very people. He was right. In fact I am told that he gave specific intructions to his supporters to not get involved in the Wiki war editing that has plagued this page since its creation. Being that he is very close to his community, it would appear as if they have in fact following his instructions. That of course leaves only me to face off against these abusers who are conducting themselves as if this were once again on a personal agenda.

As you will see, I have tried request for mediation, request for arbitration. And when nothing became of those efforts, I requested to have the page protected. This was done. Then foolishly and without fully researching the facts, an admin, summoned by these very people, unprotected the page. That did not nothing other than attract more people to the page and ended up with an even worse situation.

The page was once again protected in the past few days. The next thing I know, an RFC is being filed against me.

Please note that if I were not willing to have this page on an npov keel, why would I go through so much trouble (mediation, arbitration, protection etc) to have it looked into by a qualified admin? Who else has done this besides me?

Their RFC move against me is nothing but an attempt to silence me, stiffle my free speech and to censor my efforts at keeping the Derek Smart page npov. I have told them repeatedly that I will not let this stand and that banning me would be a pointless effort because I return and continue to revert any and all preposterous edits to that page. There is no consensus to be honored when said consensus is that which is held by the very people who do not have an npov page in mind for this person. To me, this is nothing more than an attempt to conduct a dictatorship, censorship and everything else in between. And this is the same sort of persecution that Derek Smart and anyone allied toward him, faces when people stand up for him, in his defense or whatever the call may be. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.


[edit] Outside view by TruthCrusader

As someone who has absolutely NO involvement in this matter, I can safely say that the Werewolves site in question is, in fact, nothing but a libelous and spiteful anti-Derek hate site. We are SUPPOSED to be above such things here at Wikipedia (at least thats what Jimbo keeps yapping about) which is why I cannot believe this situation has gotten as far as it has. No matter what one thinks of Derek Smart, and its easy to see why people are so passionate over the whole thing, we have to look BEYOND that and into the core of the matter: The fact is that certain editors and it seems, admins, are hell bent intent on including what is basically a hate site on a Wikipedia entry. This matter needs to go to ArbCom and dealt with ASAP. And both sides in this matter need to take a timeout from it all for a day or so. TruthCrusader 12:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Addhoc

Ok, I don't think Supreme Cmdr has been a very considerate editor, but his actions have been slightly misrepresented in this RfC.

Edit 26 - Appears to be a good faith copy edit, combined with removing material not supported by reliable sources.

Edit 29 - Removes some unreferenced material, however, I agree he should have left out the word "useless".

Edit 36 - Removes apparently non-reliable sources, including a Google Group.

Edit 46 - He is substantially correct, there is policy concerning external links to non-reliable sources.

Edit 49 - Describes this web site as "extremely critical", instead of "likely to be critical", which is a reasonably ok edit.

Reviewing these edits, I would comment the discussion on both sides was not very good natured. Also, I note that in addition to this RfC, there is further discussion of some other issues at Derek Smart Mediation Cabal, including the view the Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart, which obviously would be significant. However, my understanding of the RfC process is that in order to be commented on, they should be raised here. In this context, I don't consider this RfC has raised any matters of very serious concern. Addhoc 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this view

[edit] Outside view by JBKramer

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is a matter for ArbComm or the foundation.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JBKramer 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Addhoc 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SB_Johnny | talk 22:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. TheronJ 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this view

Could you please elaborate? Nandesuka 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Given the complicated, extended history of this conflict (1994? 1995?) and the associated BLP issues, it seems hardly advisable for this to be RFCed. If there is strong consensus that RFC is how this issue must proceed, I'm happy to amend my view to reflect my feelings on the matter. I remember the usenet discussions about the game vividly. JBKramer 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the long time period, the suspicions regarding "who is who, really?", the implication that an admin has been involved in the edit war (on the mediation request), and the fact that a 1 page article has over 500 edits makes me think that this dispute is beyond the need for simple comment. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by TheronJ

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I don't normally recommend remedies as part of a RFC response, but in this case, I would recommend that SupremeCmdr either agree to a voluntary and substantial wikibreak from the Derek Smart page or that this be taken to the ArbCom so that he can get an involuntary break.

I'm willing to assume good faith with regard to SupremeCmdr, but even so, his edits are way out of line. SupremeCmdr's practice of deleting talk page comments as insufficiently cited (e.g., [50]) is indicative of his inability to play nicely with others, as are his uncivil comments on the talk page to this RFC itself.

Sorry for clutching my pearls over WP:CIVIL, but people who are familiar with my RFC responses will know that I usually give RFC subjects the benefit of the doubt. However comments like the ones below indicate that SupremeCmdr either doesn't understand WP:CIVIL, doesn't care, or is under enough wikistress to merit a break for that reason alone.

There was nothing uncivil about my comment. . . . Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the discussion at hand instead of just jumping in and typing anything that comes to your fingers and making off the cuff and erroneous comments. And please learn how to edit before doing so.[51]
(In response to a request to be civil) - Nonsense. I can use swear words if I want; as long as I don't attack anyone. I said that what someone said was crap, shit, rubbish, nonsense, stupid etc is perfectly valid and doesn't violate any Wiki policy. If it does, by all means, please cite the source and quit carrying on like a baby who's had their milk spilled.[52]

and, of course:

My God man, do you ever pay attention to anything?!? Its bad enough that you injected yourself into this conflict with blatant and wanton disregard for policy and history, abused your powers as admin etc. But to boot, you're just making statements which have little or no merit. I can't wait until you're stripped (my next goal once this Derek Smart page is sorted out) of your admin rights. Others have been stripped of that priviledge for less.[53]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. TheronJ 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Right on target. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tomlouie | Talk 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this view

The recent remark by SC regarding stripping of admin rights can only be construed as being unneccessarily combative. -- Tomlouie | Talk 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Considering all what has been going on, I'm not the only person who has been combative. Besides, unlike you folks, none of thisis personal to me. I just want to see something done right. Now, knowing that this rfc is likely to fail miserably, I see you folks are trying to deflect the issue in an attempt to get me off Wiki so that you folks can go ahead and rape the Derek Smart article. That will never happen.
I believe that stifle has abused his powers in much the same way whoever filed this rfc, felt that it needed to be done. But you don't see me crying about it. My rfc response was clear and to the point. With no combative words or terms.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mikademus

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

As a short observation I would like to say that I think this displute is largely based on one significant confusion which has largely to do with unofficial Wikipedia stylistic conventions. The controversial aspect of DS (the subject of the bio) is The Great Flamewar, the war that raged from 1996, especially on the Usenet, but still has not died out completely. The Werewolf site apparently has a collection of Usenet posts documenting this. Thus, two interpretations of this data are possible: (1) the Werewolf data is evidence of the character of DS. (2) the Werewolf data are examples if the flamewar in which DS was involved. The two camps have, in my interpretation, been focusing on two different things and have talked beside each other: SC with some others have perceived the Werewolf link as unsubstantiated slander on the person of DS while a cluster of other editors have seen it as an example of the debate and especially the opinions of the anti-DS side of the flamewar. At the core of the problem is thus --a bit anti-climactically-- the aforementioned unvoiced convention, unofficial through gradual emergence, of only listing external links with as short a description as possible, ideally only the link itself, while in this case it would deserve at least a short paragraph. At best there should be an entire section devoted to DS's involvement in The Great Flamewar, which would allow the link to be properly qualified. I hope this would satisfy both parties.

It should perhaps be noted that I started an article on the great flamewar which led to a certain amoung of cooperation among the parties involved. In that article the problems of source relevance etc could be properly addressed. However, that page was promptly deleted as of no encyclopedic value, which to a certain extent is understandable, but unfortunate for this conflict since it did lead to some cooperation. However, I do think that article could be worked into the DS article, and perhaps would provide enough qualification of the status, or situation, of the disputed link as well as further page contents to solve the deadlock. Mikademus 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Comments on this view

Corrections:

  • The flamewar died out completely when Smart (dsmart at pobox.com) stopped posting on Usenet on Oct 17th, 2001
  • The Werewolves site is not solely about the flamewar. It is particularly an anti-DS site whose sole purposes it to libel and character assassinate Smart. It bears no relevance to his bio. If that were the case, then every nuance of every person with a bio on Wiki would be subjected to the inclusion of that person's life.
  • The Werewolves site is about Smart vs Huffman. Nothing more. Nothing less.
  • The Werewolves site fails to meet the requirements of WP:EL and its inclusion (or any part thereof) will fail to meet the more stringent WP:BLP rules.

Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.