Firstly, I neither posted the werewolves link originally, nor was I the individual who most recently returned the link to the page. That said, I think a case could be certainly be made for its inclusion. Firstly, the accusation of libel is extremely dubious as the site consists primarily of archives of public discussion, and the remainder almost certainly consists of "fair comment and criticism." Additionally, the webmasters offer to remove the site if certain information was provided makes it very difficult to insinuate malice or reckless negligence.
So, I think that clears up my position on whether it detracts from the article... as far as what it adds... well, it is the largest repository of materials regarding the "internet flamewar" portion of Derek's career, and, as I've stated before, that topic is legitimately as important as game design in Smart's public activities.
I have no particular axe to grind on this issue, I'm simply committed to ensuring the article stays useful, and is neither vandalised with negative trash nor whitewashed of any mention of controversy.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Supreme Cmdr: Hello, I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A request for us to mediate has recently been made regarding an ongoing link dispute on the Derek Smart article, and you have been named as an involved party in the mediation request. The Mediation Cabal request page is here:
I would be exceptionally grateful if you would please review the mediation request and comment as appropriate at the mediation page in the "Responses by involved parties" section, indicating whether or not you would wish to enter into mediation and, if possible, any suggestions on what you would consider to be an ideal goal of the mediation to be. Remember, this process is entirely voluntary, and you won't be subject to any disciplinary action for either participating or refusing to do so, so you don't need to feel forced to do anything. If you require any assistance relating to this dispute, please feel free to contact me; I am entirely at your service. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
You state on the Derek Smart talk page that some of the emails on the Werewolves site are also clear forgeries "(compare to their Usenet originals)"
Can you point out which ones you are refering to - I checked out a few myself and they all matched.
If indeed you actually did check out a few, you would have noticed them immediately. How did you check them? Did you actually look up the Google original and compare against the cut and paste job that Huffman did? I don't think so. And there is no reason why Huffman can't link to the originals on Google instead of cutting, pasting and modifying in the same way photos of Smart are edited on his page. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I used header contained in the werewolves post to look up the corresponding usenet post on Google. The posts I checked were identical. Can you please point me to the ones that are forgeries? 67.121.211.77 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
First you said you weren't Derek Smart. Now your user page says that you are. Which is it? -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not Derek Smart. I only recently created that page (just before the cabal) so that I could add a 'talk' link to my signature. I didn't realize that I had missed out the _not_ in the single line sentence. Thanks for pointing that out.
btw, I contacted Smart and offered to give him this page since most know him as the Supreme Commander (from his game world) but he has indicated that he has no interest in this debate and that he would create his own Wiki page when he wants. He also pointed out that this whole Huffman debate is reminiscent of the Usenet and that nothing will come of it except wasted time and energy. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Although you say that you are not derek smart, you seem to act and talk like him which is very suspicious.
Whatever dude. You clearly don't know anything about dsmart. If you did then you would also know that he never hides nor posts anonymously.
...Except on the official forums, where his handle is Supreme Cmdr.137.166.4.130 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be derek smart, as only he writes as "dsmart" :) You seem to have his ego as you glorify your page to boost your ego( just have a look at your edits), and you seem to waste your time editing derek smart when you should be programming games, the same thing that hapenned during the flame wars :)
One trip to Google provides sufficient proof that he is not the only one who writes as 'dsmart'. You guys are really funny. Considering that a Usenet thread about this Wiki now exists, it is no surprise that you folks are once again turning his Wiki page into a version of the Usenet flamewar. It was inevitiable I guess.
If thats how your brain works, be my guest. You obviously missed all the edits I made here and on the Derek Smart page indicating why I use this alias. Are you really that stupid? To think that I would use this alias and then claim to not be him though I am him by association with the alias? Give me a break. If you don't have better things to do with your time but to make unfounded accusations, then go flying a kite. Its Summer.
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
While your claims that various links may or may not be libelous, slanderous, or dematory are all very interesting, such editorializing is absolutely inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. Please re-read and understand the no original research policy before inserting your own personal opinions into artcles. Nandesuka 13:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I did read the 'no original research' and found that the links posted did not qualify as such. Do you think that I would have spent that much time digging up all that information only to have it not fall within the Wiki guidelines? Also, you didn't have to revert the entire entries. You could simply have made the relevant edits because not all of the material would have failed to meet the guidelines.
Here read this excerpt from the guidelines:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
Further, by your own admission - and Wiki guidelines - the hotly contested external links (e.g. the link to Werewolved) should not be on the page.
Prior to your posting here, I already brought this up on your talk page.Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe you are referring to this revert, [1], which would be where I reverted your edit where you put this absolutely unacceptable text in a Wikipedia article:
There is so much wrong with your edits that I don't know where to begin. But I'll try. First off, linking an article to a talk page is bad form. Second, inserting your own personal opinion into an article is original research. If you wish to avoid having your edits reverted, then please improve the quality of your work, because this particular edit is nowhere near Wikipedia standards. Nandesuka 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fine, I can accept the 'personal opinion' aspect, but by the same token, you are clearly doing whole reverts, instead of editing out conflicting materials. That is also poor form. All I'm trying to do is keep this page NPOV while others are simply trying to do the same thing they have been doing on the Usenet for many years. That being, character assassinating Smart.
I also didn't realize the link to a talk page was considered bad form. Nevertheless, it is not against Wiki guidelines. If it is, please point me to the Wiki rules where it is cited as being unacceptable.
If you wanted to be neutral admin, you would not make whole reverts because that too is considered bad form and just plain lazy.
I did not revert you in any administrative capacity, but in my capacity as an editor reverting an edit that was sprinkled from top to bottom with problems. I suggest you begin trying to work through consensus on the article's talk page instead of trying to blast your way through perceived problems by ignoring your fellow editors. That might work in some places, such as USENET or internet discussion forums, but it won't work here. Nandesuka 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your edit was ridiculous and without merit because of what you did. You simply reverted to an earlier edit which in fact had problems of its own. But somehow you conveniently missed that. See my comments about that. Quite frankly, I don't see how you came about this Derek Smart page because from your profile, you have not posted on any game (or industry) related page. So I suspect that because you are an admin, you were most likely summoned here by your friends who no doubt voted you in as an admin. That is an abuse of power and I'm going to report it and bring attention to this page. I am also going to ask that this page go to arbitration in order to prevent abuse by you and your friends. I am certain that looking at your other edits - including comments by others who opposed your election as Wiki admin - it will be clear that you are not neutral and therefore woefully unfit to be an admin. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, and more importantly, regarding your request that I cite the Wiki rules wherein linking to a talk page is unacceptable, please read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Anything that makes the encyclopedia suck is unacceptable. There doesn't have to be a specific rule saying "Don't make the encyclopedia suck in specific ways A, B, C, and D". Citing a talk page (that is, citing discussions on the encyclopedia) so obviously (a) violated WP:NOR and (b) makes the encyclopedia suck that I really don't think it warrants any serious discussion. Nandesuka 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
That is ludicrous nonsense. Refering to a talk page from an article cannot, in and of itself, be regarded as "making Wiki suck". There are lots of things that make Wiki suck and they're not challenged. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You seem to have a core misunderstanding of WP:NOR, as indicated here. The "no original research" applies to the work on Wikipedia, not the the work done on external sources. Werewolves, while you may not like it, is a source of information and is expected to be original research. I am putting this link back into the article, which you have yet againremoved. - Chris 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I would encourage you to write a section in the Derek Smart article on Bill Huffman. You annotated the the Werewolves link with a link to the talk page re: Huffman, but this is the wrong way. If Huffman is key here, his involvement in the controversies probably needs a section. I wouldn't go so far as to write an article on him, but a section in the DS article would probably be a good start to quelling the back-and-forth on this link. I know the link's negative. I know you feel that the content there is unverifiable. However, reading what I can from the site, I can't see anything on the face of it that is obviously in bad faith. But please prove me wrong. Use this section to refute what is said there; and do it with citations and neutral language, not simply claiming the contrary and saying things like Bill's "obviously" a nut/stalker/whatever. I'm guessing you are a DS supporter and I'd no doubt feel the same way you do if I were in your shoes. - Chris 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Isn't that what the Bill Huffman talk page entry is for? Can we just cut and paste (with some edits for neutrality) whats already in the Talk page and create a new entry as suggested? I have already been accused of not being neutral, that I'm Derek Smart etc. So do you want to do the honors of creating the entry and lets work on it?
As to bad faith. Bill Huffman is a known Smart stalker and his #1 detractor. This is widely known. How can you say that you don't see anything on his site that appears in bad faith? Are you serious?
Apart from that, his site - like Google links - are not credible sources, are they?
Yes, I'm serious about the Werewolves site. It's purely negative toward Smart, but I'm simply saying that I have not seen anything on the face of it that says "This is not true".
As for linking to the talk page, it's just that if the material if germane to the article, include it in the article, don't just link to the talk page.
I'm reading the google threads you have posted on Huffman in that talk page now and I haven't seen anything yet that suggests he's a "stalker". The talk about looking up the child and the mother, while that suggests an obsession (an arguably disturbing one), it doesn't say stalker. But it's a big thread and maybe I've just not yet gotten to the incriminating post(s).
uhm, absence of the truth is not a defense against libel. Just because no rebuttal exists, doesn't prove that it is true. For example, Huffman on his site has an entire page saying that Smart suffers from NPD. Now tell me, how does that make it true? Where is the evidence to support that? What if someone posted that you had AIDS? That you were a wife beater etc? What would you do about it and are we to think then that since there is nothing there to say "This is not true", that it is? Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I never said it was, but then I never mentioned libel. I can't comment on the claim of libel, but I also didn't know that Smart sued for libel and prevailed. Is this so? If not, claims of libel are just claims. This would mean that if I have an article on WP which has a particularly negative link on it, I should be allowed to have it removed just by claiming it is libelous. With that said, I also didn't say that anything on the site is was either true or false. It is just a source of information.
By the way, can I assume your reference to Huffman re: NPD on the site is this? - Chris 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of the thread, I think that google is probably one of the better bets as to verifiability in this case. Not that the material there is necessarily verifiable, but in newsgroups, there is an openness to the discussion and no one's voice can be quelled because the website owner doesn't like their opinion. Ultimately, can you really trust anything written on the internet? Granted, some sources are more credible than others, but even CNN and Fox News have their own slant on topics.
Indeed. And thats the whole problem. Smart has denied several times and posted that many threads and forums about the stuff on Huffman's site. Why else do you think the ISPs who removed his sites, did? Obviously they found valid reasons to do so. This - and other reasons - is why Huffman's site is squarely not a reliable source, regardless of what material is there. How can it possibly be a reliable source when his is a known detractor and supposed Internet stalker of Smart? This is the argument that has been going on for months now since this Wiki page showed up. The NPD claim alone is enough to disqualify the site from being included in Wiki, if we are to go by the guidelines. Think about it. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Why else do you think the ISPs who removed his sites, did?" - I assume you mean that ISPs removed Huffman's sites? I'm just a little confused by "his", whether you mean Huffman or Smart. Assuming you mean Huffman, I didn't realize ISPs removed any of his sites. However, it's good that you bring this up. I would think that if there were actionable libel issues, the ISP for Werewolves (or whomever hosts the site) would have removed this site. The bottom line, at least according to what I've seen is that the only rebuttal to the content on werewolves is "Smart has denied" and claims that Huffman is a stalker. I know it's hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative, so if it's really libel, why hasn't Smart sued Huffman and gotten a judgment? Until that time, unless there is evidence to rebut the claims on werewolves, it's a valid source of information. I encourage you - nay IMPLORE you - to put forth cites to the contrary. - Chris 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suppose I'll have a go at including the Huffman material in the article myself. And you're right; neutrality is the key and I'll do my best. No, I don't think you're neutral, and I have my suspicions as to who you are, but I'll try to practice what I've preached about WP:AGF and leave my skepticism outside of WP. Besides, if all I have is a suspicion with no proof, that's really just my own problem. - Chris 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I started it this morning, but of course the anons are starting to cause problems again, now that the shoe is going on the other foot. As to the [online] stalking, there are links to it and it is a known fact that this is what was happening and has been reported several times on various forums and media sites.
As I said, I'm still trying to wade through the thread you posted on Huffman being a stalker. And it appears that indeed Usenet should not be used as source material. - Chris 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how many more times we can go over this. Chris, some of this might be useful to you as well.
uhm, absence of the truth is not a defense against libel. What the heck does that even mean? We can't accuse someone of libel on WP without it being a) a link to a secondary source detailing a legal verdict supporting the accusation or b) a link to a valid source providing a quotation of an accusation of libel.
"Why else do you think the ISPs who removed his sites, did?" I don't have any idea, whether they did or what the reasons might be. Perhaps you do, but you're not a valid secondary source. Cite it. Then it'd be a great addition to the article.
Usenet's not a valid source. Among other things, there's no reliable method of ascertaining identity.
"How can it possibly be a reliable source when his is a known detractor and supposed Internet stalker of Smart?" Known? Known to whom? You? Do we need to go over the "you're not a valid source" thing again?
Minor point: why would you put in a (unsourced) statement about Huffman being banned from forums when Smart has been banned from of some of same, himself?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Ideogram 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
As you can see, user Fox1 went and put back the link which was removed and created a section which is not only irrelevant but has no place in an autobiography of this person. Can't you folks make him stop? Seriously. How long is this going to continue for before someone bans him?
Wow, that's a little harsh, considering you're the only one currently on record opposing the link. Also, that's not really how banning works, but... whatever.
Harsh? You mean like you posting that I had the page protected based on a fib?
As to me being the only one on record opposing the link, thats because I'm the only one of very few people remotely interested in seeing that this page get done right. I've been here since the very beginning. Would you rather that ever detractor, supporter or whatever show up here and pitch in their two cents? Is mob mentality a consensus on Wiki where it has to take more than one opposing person to get the others to adhere to Wiki guidelines and policies?
Um, far be for me to interrupt a rant, but I do feel compelled to point out that I never said anything about having the page "based on a fib." That may have been an anon who didn't sign their comment.
You are right. Sorry about that. I went back and chceked. I've also added anon comments to this person's sections where he doesn't sign them. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have no power to ban people nor do I have any power to block people at my discretion. Please see our blocking and banning policies. If you can quote a specific breach of one or more of these policies, I can take action. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
However, if you can't, then I respectfully ask that you take your dispute off my talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You unprotected the page. It is your responsibility to see that this farce gets settled one way or another I think. Apart from that, you - an admin - are clearly misinterpreting WP:RS as it pertains to the much contested Werewolves link.
Later today I'm going to post in the admin area and draw the attention of other more rational admins to this page so that we can see what the general consensus for WP:RS is.
I saw you re-added the link (which is has a wrong syntax, by the way) to the Derek Smart flamewar article. I strongly feel it should not be there, as it is self referential (see Wikipedia:Self references). It's ok to add it to the talk page, but to the reader of Wikipedia, it is very irrelevant. --JoanneB 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, will remove and add to talk page. Thanks!! Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Smart's statements and opinion on the werewolves pageedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
On the Derek Smart page, you have stated multiple times:
"Smart himself vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination"
I have make a good faith effort to find a source for this statement using google on "Derek Smart", "Follies", and "Bill Huffman". While I found some usenet postings, some message board posts, and the werewolves page of course, 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. 75.17.140.87 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then you haven't looked hard enough. There are dozens of Usenet postings, web postings etc in which he clearly offers his opinions on the page. Obviously those links are not considered to be reliable sources so they cannot be used on his Wiki page. Where else would you expect to find them if you already found them on the resources you cited? Tatooed on my back or in the latest newspaper?
And while you're at it, please take this crap to the Derek Smart talk page where an active discussion is already in progress because I'm just going to ignore any further commentary on this page.
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"? 75.17.140.87 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi, had a look at your Request for Comment. They should switch to decaff. Addhoc 11:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I only just became aware of it myself and have just posted a lengthy response. That Derek Smart page is an example of everything that is wrong with Wiki.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Take a peek at my recent edit where I tried to undo my accidental erasure of your text. I reverted your text back in, but when I tried to indicate that the text was by you, the unsigned tag didn't behave as expected. You can go in an edit your sig in, and delete my "Ay caramba..." note if you want. My apologies. Tomlouie 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not going to further clutter up the main RfC with this conversation, so I'm taking it here. Seeing your recent comment, it is evident you need some review as to my signing talk pages.
First, you brought up my signature nickname change here. You are correct; I changed the way I sign. However, I believe that you were also insinuating that I was doing it to somehow subvert the RfC, which is simply not true.
Key points:
I removed the nickname ("Chris", which is my actual first name and which I've had on my main user page since September of last year) to have my signatures be more identifiable.
If I was trying to "hide", I'm not stupid enough to think that changing my sig nick would accomplish anything.
You're simply wrong in your statement herein contradicting Stifle. He is absolutely correct here. Until I changed my sig, I usually signed exactly as stated, "[[User:Nuggetboy|Chris]]".
I really don't care. Everything you said above is nonsense. The reason for my changing your sig on the rfc is exactly as I stated. I never insinuated anything that you are implying.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I know you aren't Derek, but I just wanted to say BC3M totally rocks. Some of us appreciate his hard work. People sometimes cant understand how someone can be so passionate about something, its their loss. I just wish I could find a manual for B3CM somewhere! TruthCrusader 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
BC3M? Which game is that? Do you mean BCM? If so, I believe that the manual is included in the free release of the game. You might want to check his website downloads area for the link to the free download of that game. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah i got it! I still get killed a lot though..lol...thanks! TruthCrusader 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Eat source citations and weap.
Slashdot discussion http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/17/0533221Lordkazan 18:21, 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 SmartReply
And thats a legal threat? Are you KIDDING me?!?! Like ANY entity that owns an IP, he has the rights to protect it by preventing anyone (for e.g. that mod) from tainting it. For example, just this morning I read that Microsoft shutdown a Halo mod. I fail to see where he threatened them with legal action. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you incapable of understanding? 1st he doesn't own the freespace 2 IP, 2nd he doesn't own any IP relating to ferrium The Ferrium Project Team is the sole owner of all Ferrium Project IP. NO FreeSpace universe IP was involved in the Ferrium ProjectLordkazan 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You should be asking yourself that question. The point here is that he supposedly threatened legal action. Thats ludicrous to say the least. He never claimed to own any of the IPs you mentioned. He merely pointed out that IF he got the FS license, that he would shutdown all those illegally using it to create mods and whatnot. Why is this surprising? Especially when you consider that its the normal par for the course when gaming licenses are bought. Over on the Fox, Paramount and other pages, there are no entries about the numerous legal actions, threats etc that studios (and game publishers) have taken against communities that illegally use their IPs. This is only in this Wiki because it is about Derek Smart and once again a group of unknown are fighting for their own two minutes of fame. Pathetic. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's because Fox, Paramount, and other movie studios are notable for producing quality content, whereas Derek Smart is only notable for acting like a raving lunatic on internet messageboards. There are thousands of independent game developers who have written games that, like Battlecruiser, are of no significance whatsoever. Wikipedia doesn't have articles about them: we only have articles about notable things or people. The only reason Smart is notable is because he acts like a nut. That's why we write about particular instances of Smart's mouth writing checks that his brain can't cash, which the above citations are clear demonstrations of. Hope that help! Nandesuka 11:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That there is your opinion and only shared by you and your ilk. Saying that Derek Smart is notable because he acts like a nut on forums is just stupid and irresponsible. Thats like saying Bill Gates is notable for releasing buggy software. Or that George Bush is notable for being an incompetent president. I'm happy to see posts like this because it just serves to prove what I've been saying all along. That being, you folks have no interest in the factual accuracy of his Wiki, but rather want to use it as an attack piece. There are thousands and thousands of game developers who people don't know about and who don't even release games that are worthy of discussion. Yet, there is Derek Smart, for good, bad or ugly who gained notoriety first and foremost through his games.Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
No one has heard of Smart's games. Plenty of people have heard of Smart acting like a nut. That's really all there is to it. Nandesuka 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It would be interesting to note that what "factual accuracy" means as defined by Supreme_Cmdr. Almost all the facts that can be obtained about Smart reveal him to be a hot tempered nut who delights in creating controversy as claimed by even himself in a interview.Kerr avon 13:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Derek Smart. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lordkazan 05:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Derek Smart, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 13:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is your last warning. The next time you blank or remove material from a page, as you did to Derek Smart, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
These warnings are invalid and innapropriate. They are an attempt to use templates to win a content dispute. JBKramer 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
{{unblock| I file this request as a 3rd party observer. I do not believe that this account participated in blanking vandalism - over the past 10 days it has one edit - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=78541176], which is clearly a content dispute. The filing on AIV listed this user as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=78551610&oldid=78551356 "persistant blanking vandalism"]. I attempted to contact the blocking admin, who has not responded on their talk page for 1.5 hours. I have raised a user conduct RFC regarding the filier of the dishonest AIV report at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lordkazan]].}} [[User:JBKramer|JBKramer]] 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The unblock template is broken - this is the pasted rationale: I file this request as a 3rd party observer. I do not believe that this account participated in blanking vandalism - over the past 10 days it has one edit - [3], which is clearly a content dispute. The filing on AIV listed this user as "persistant blanking vandalism". I attempted to contact the blocking admin, who has not responded on their talk page for 1.5 hours. I have raised a user conduct RFC regarding the filier of the dishonest AIV report at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lordkazan. JBKramer 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I unblocked you as you were wrongfully blocked for page-blanking vandalism. What this is, however, is a content dispute, and it would be best to make further discussion on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting, however. Please try that, and perhaps mediation or some other dispute resolution process may also be a good idea. Cowman109Talk 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. These folks will try anything to silence me; while they try to clandestinely use the Derek Smart page for their personal vendetta and character assassination of him. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Your contribs seem to offer no alternative interpretation to me. But if you're really not him, why not widen your scope? Try working on some other articles for a while, let the dust settle. Subversive 13:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not him. This has been said before and verified by an admin. My interest in this Wiki is my own business. I have no other Wiki interests. So why is that a bad thing of even open to discussion? Do I have to pick someone else's hobby because I like my hobby (e.g. baseball)? Gimme a break. There are other editors here (e.g. JBKramer) who are also trying to keep this Wiki on an even keel without much success. Another editor, WarHawk also just showed up. I suspect that with attention being put on this Wiki that its only going to get worse.
Your interest in this whole thing is your own business, sure thing. I just asked because I think editors with a very narrow scope are often involved in ongoing disputes / edit warring, because the tendency is that those editors feel strongly about their favourite topic(s). I didn't want to insult you in any way. I just happen to think that it is helpful to confront oneself with the contribs one made and potential tendencies in that. Your contrib list shows very little diversity, as opposed to that of JBKramer, for example. I'm not talking agenda, but simply about the fact that your contribs are near exclusively limited to the Derek Smart article, which I don't take as proof of, but as a possible indication for strong feelings on the article subject -- and that in turn often proves to be problematic. Subversive 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with what you are saying. But what got me involved in this is due to the fact that his detractors were once again using the Wiki as their battleground. I don't do much on Wiki but when I do find the time, this is the Wiki that I work on. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's your chartered right and I won't challenge it in any way. Subversive 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeated edit warring to the Derek Smart article. Please discuss the controversial changes you are making in the future instead of removing sourced information within the article. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your block was invalid and not well researched. Apart from that, you blocked me for 48hrs which - according to Wiki guidelines - is outside the realm of your reason for the block. It should have been for only 24hrs.
Fact is, the materials that I reverted are unsourced material and materials which do not pass the WP:RS test. If you compared the material which I reverted to the previous edit, this would have been obvious. For e.g. links to posts on web forums are not considered {WP:RL}. The Ph.D. material I removed is also irrelevant and is only controversial to the one party (Bill Huffman, alleged Derek Smart stalker) and his buddies. That said controversy has never appeared in any publication nor WP:RS source.
When those same [disruptive] people added those highly controversal materials, they were never discussed and no consensus was reached. So why on Earth would they be allowed to stand? Especially when you consider that this Derek Smart Wiki is protected under the WP:BLP.
A ban on Supreme_cmdr was the correct thing to do, and as anyone will see during the period of the ban there will be no revert wars and the article will not deteriorate. Supreme_cmdr who is arguably Smart himself and a SPA, intentionally twists wiki guidlines to his own needs.
The Ph.D is very relevant indeed, as Smart himself claims to have a Ph.D but has never provided any evidence to substantiate it. A online search of Ph.D thesis never showed Smart's supposed thesis. So the issue of the Ph.D is quite relevant to a biography of person and especially more so in the case of Smart who's genuiness of the claim to have a Ph.D is suspect.
The Ph.D controversy has appeared in numurous USENET archives which Smart participated in and he was challenged to prove the authenticity. The werewolves site contains a compendium of the relevant USENET postings which can be verified with google groups. Anyone must agree that acadamic fraud is a serious offence and it should be mentioned.
Regarding WP:RS Supreme_cmdr convinently ignores it when he wants to whitewash Smart and attack his detractors as evidenced by his edit [[4]] which shows him making completely unsubstantiated serious and potentially libelous (baby snatching allegations) against huffman. He invokes a google group link to try to substantiate his claims forgetting conveniently about WP:RS but he strongly objects quoting WP:RS when google groups are used to highlight things critical of SMart.
Regarding the werewolves site, supreme_cmdr obviously doesnt like it because it contains a exhaustive analysis of Smart's USENET posting and contructively criticises him. Most of the articles about Smart or his games mention and quote this site, so it would be silly for the wikipedia not to include it. It is not libellous as Smart allegates, if that is the case why hasn;t Smart shut it down already.
In summary this revert wars will never end until supreme_cmdr is kicked out, or he stops editing just like the flame wars died out when Smart himself coluntrarily disappered from it.
The majority of what you posted is false, based on heresay and conjecture. Also, I don't need to remind you that Usenet and forum posts are not WP:RL. By your own admission, the numerous Usenet posts themselves are proof positive that there are two opposing sides.
Also, nobody cares if it ls libelous or not. You people just don't get it. Wiki is not a court of law. There are rules and regs for posting material, especially in a page that is protected by WP:BL. Since there is no proof either way of his Ph.D. or lackoff, you can't prove a negative. Incidentally, there are numerous court cases which people have been sued for less. I came across one just last night in which Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts and the ./ discussion The Huffman site, like Usenet, forum posts etc is not WP:RL. It is a known detractor's site that offers one-sided commentary and apart from Usenet is the 'only' place where the Ph.D. controversy exists. That site has no place in the Wiki and will never be allowed to stand. Ever.
The removal of the information is clearly contested, and as such you should turn to discussion instead of edit warring. Cowman109Talk 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nonsense. It is contested only by the same people who added it back in after it was removed several months ago. All that they have done is come back and re-posted the same material that was previously removed, but in a different context that still does not pass the test. You're just not paying attention. So I'm going to create an Rfc against you so that other more competent and unbiased admins can take a look see.
{unblock reviewed|The unjust 48hr block period has since expired -- Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)|decline=Your block will expire at 00:59, 13 October 2006 -- Naconkantari 00:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
How come? I was blocked at 19:59, 10 October 2006 which means that it should have expired 48hrs later on 19:59 12 October 2006 (UTC) Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)}Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
You have now been blocked for an additional 72 hours for sockpuppetry and block evasion (as WarHawk) on Derek Smart. --InShaneee 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
{unblock|I do not have a sock puppet!! Are you KIDDING me?!?! How the heck are you associating me with the WarHawk person?!?! This is ridiculous. What PROOF do you have of this?!?! Once again you have abused your admin powers~ Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)}Reply
Exactly. These people don't even check anything anymore. This InShaneee person first inaccurately blocked me for blanking. Another admin had to unblock me. Now he's gone and done it again by not only blocking me but also that WarHawk person who also sent me an email indicating that he'd been blocked for being my sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believed he was your sockpupet as well, FYI. JBKramer 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
ack!!! Well at least the check user proves that I'm not. I mean seriously, why would I need a sock puppet? Why go through all that trouble for a page that has nothing to do with me? Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
In the spirit of total honestly, I also believe you are Derek Smart. I also think that the page about you could use a serious expungement of everyone who is here only to talk about Derek Smart - both you and Smart's detractors. JBKramer 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I understand fully. But I'm not him. Besides, Smart is notoriously too egotistical to post anon. He just never does it. And anyone who knows him is quite aware of that. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since the block was based on sockpuppetry, and that has been refuted by CheckUser, I've unblocked. Mangojuicetalk 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Huh. I haven't been able to locate any currently active autoblocks, with the information you've given me. Can I get the username of the blocking administrator, and/or original blockee? In the event it's your IP address, directly, which has been blocked, I'd need the address to look into it. Beyond that, maybe try editing the sandbox, and see if that works. Thanks, and please bear with us in the meantime. Luna Santin 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
{unblock-auto|70.155.235.198|Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Supreme Cmdr". The reason given for Supreme Cmdr's block is: "sockpuppetry on Derek Smart".}
I removed the autoblock. Things should be working fine now. Cowman109Talk 15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent posts to user:Kerr avon appear to be provoking and borderline harassment and the matter is best left dropped. Please see WP:NPA as well. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
How can you say that I'm harrassing him, considering what he has been doing to start this up? Anyway, I have since dropped the matter but you really need to stop singling me out for your admin power trips.Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not violate 3RR. I only did three reverts in whole and/or in part!! The rest were regular edits
Decline reason:
No, you did four, in the span of only a couple hours, I might add. Reverts don't always have to be to the same previous version, just reverting over and over is a problem. Please use the talk page to discuss your edits before you do them. Mangojuicetalk 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You must stop reverting, period. If you engage in reasonable discussion on the talk page and convince the reasonable editors there (Myself, Nanduska, others), then you will get what you want. If you fail to convince myself and Nanduska and others, you will not. If you engage in fruitless banter with less reasonable editors, you will not convince us. Focus on the content. Thanks. JBKramer 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
In the meantime, I suggest you start preparing a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration case. This edit war has gone on for too long in my opinion and it's only going to get worse for everyone until ArbCom intervene. -- Netsnipe ► 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have been blocked for edit warring on Derek Smart. I am aware you have not reverted more than 3 times today, but note that you do not have a right to 3 reverts a day, and you've been blocked numerous times for edit warring on that page. -- Steel 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was not edit warring! This is BULLSHIT. I made a specific change which was a content dispute. One of the proponents of the anti-dsmart brigade decided they didn't like the edit. All WITHOUT giving the reason. So I get blocked? This is EXACTLY what is wrong with Wiki. People on a power trip don't even stop to look at the facts anymore. Some cries out foul and another 'someone' runs out with a hose. This is BULLSHIT.
Decline reason:
This unblock request says it all. In addition to using your holiday to review WP:3RR, you can also read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your behaviour is not acceptable. -- Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
As per community consensus here, you are now banned from editing any and all articles at all relating to Derek Smart or his works for a period of one month. Editing any of these pages will result in an immediate block and a possible extension of this ban. --InShaneee 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your ban is unwarranted and there is no supporting consensus for it. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, this is not the first time you have blocked me IMPROPERLY. First, you blocked me for blanking. Something which I didn't even do. Then you blocked me for being a sock puppert. Something that an RFCU proved to be FALSE. So, here we are again. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
InShanee, I would suggest that Supreme Cmdr is correct, your actions contravene WP:BAN policy, specifically "community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users". Addhoc 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
There was a discussion on an open forum, and there was no disagreement. That's what that policy means. --InShaneee 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, when the WP:BAN policy says "community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users" that's exactly what it means. This ban isn't legitimate because it was "based on agreement between a handful of admins or users". Addhoc 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think this is because we're using the incorrect term. SC has not been banned; he's been blocked for a finite amount of time. Notice he is not listed at WP:BU. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, we're not using the incorrect term. I was article BANNED. Because I IGNORED the ban due to it not being legitimate, I was then BLOCKED. We're not idiots you know. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Speak for yourself. As it happens, I agree there isn't a legitimate ban in place, however currently, there is a block, which is being appealed. Addhoc 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Blocked You have been blocked for for 2 weeks for breaching your article ban on all Derek Smart related pages. this edit along with others are clearly made after the ban Upon discussions with the admins who placed the ban, this may and will extend indefinitely.
To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.
Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Glen 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Glen S, firstly, I would question the legitimacy of this ban, secondly, erasing warnings on a user page isn't a policy violation, lastly, "upon discussions with the admins who placed the ban, this may and will extend indefinitely", isn't correct, the discussion is supposed to involve the community, not just admins. Addhoc 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The article ban violates WP:BAN policy and was unwarranted. So I chose to ignore it and am now subsequently blocked. This is just getting way out of hand.
Decline reason:
Agreement for the article ban was quite appropriate. --pgk 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Given the ban was very clearly "enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users", I would suggest this was unequivocally a contravention of policy. Addhoc 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. And Supreme Cmdr needs to bring this to the attention of other admins who can actually interprete the Wiki policies. WarHawkSP 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
One of which would be me, an neutral editor in whatever has happened here. WarHawkSP, you might like to back off here, as you're not making things better. Some calm reflection by this user would be helpful to everybody at this point; some calm reflection by you might also help. Just advice. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
For what little my advice may be worth, you do not do yourself any favors when you start ranting about libel and lawsuits. In the first place, you evidently don't know much about how such suits work in the real world (it is not trivial to pursue a successful lawsuit for libel in the USA). In the second place, it makes you appear (correctly or not) to be a loon. I suggest you focus on the goal of Wikipedia: to be a repository of verifiable, NPOV information that does not constitute original research. -- BBlackmoor(talk) • 2007-01-11 20:20Z
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dereksmart.jpg)edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Dereksmart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
