Talk:Derek Smart

Let's work on this

Alright, this article does need a bit of work. It may not be the most high-traffic page on the wiki, but that doesn't mean it should fall short of our high standards. This article, when I first looked at it... well, it sucked. I did some work and, I'd like to think, it sucked a little bit less when I was done. It still needs a heap o' fixing, though.

To that end, I dig most of what Mrja84 did in his last edit, but I have two disagreements with the changes (obviously, they're the items I put back in the article. The comments on the Smart usenet flamewars, and the issue of his claimed doctoral degree, are very much deserving of a place in this article. This is not article about the BC3K games, or any of Smart's projects, it is about Derek Smart, the public figure, and to not include information on these facets of his public life, which certainly rival his contributions to the video game world in the public eye, is a real disservice to the reader. There will be people who come to this article, much like I did, to try and find out why this guy's name comes up so often, and, quite frankly, there's a better chance they came across a flame war reference than someone talking about Universal Combat.

That said, let's make sure to really NPOV this sucker, that's been a big problem in this article.

Fox1 15:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Other Issues

The last time I looked at this page, I noticed that the "vending machine" story needed some work, and I meant (eventually) to come back and change it to reflect the facts (as far as I know them, not having been there myself). However, I see that someone has beaten me to it, and has done a better job than I would probably have done. I approve of the tone and the details of the "vending machine" story in this version[1]. I think it fairly balances the story (which is well-known and entertaining, and thus deserves a mention) with what appear to be the facts (and backed up with a citation, which is always nice). Well done. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements requiring verification

I removed the following statement from the "Other issues" section, pending verification from a reliable published source:

Smart also claimed his Ph.D was from a "renowned accredited University", but has admitted in an email that he bought it from a diploma mill.

While re-typing it here, I took the liberty of correcting its grammar. I hope that's okay. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 13:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Try http://follies.werewolves.org/archives/1NotSmart/1Anth2/AdmitsNotAccredited.txt pointing to Derek's claim his "University" is not accredited.

http://follies.werewolves.org/archives/1NotSmart/1Anth2/DiplomaFromDegreeMill.txt points to Derek claiming his "University" is a degree mill, 211.30.79.217 22:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Private emails posted on a partisan web site are not considered reliable sources. There's no way to verify who originally wrote them, if they've been modified since then, or even if what's been posted to that web site was ever sent as an email at all. It doesn't matter if it is true: it must be verifiable. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following statement pending verification from a reliable published source:

   Smart has claimed to have a bot which monitors detractor websites and has also 
   posted information about his attempt to have one of the detractors 
   fired[2].

Reminder: private emails or newsgroup messages do not constitute reliable sources. There's no way to verify who originally wrote them, if they've been modified since then, or even if what's been posted to that web site was ever sent as an email at all. It doesn't matter if it is true: it must be verifiable. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-18 T 00:55 Z

Serious Sam

For some reason, the author of this article credited Smart with creating Serious Sam. I corrected his error. -gga_nate

npov

Weighty article. It may be true, but it really needs to have some cites for each of the controversial points. The fact that this article mentions nothing about him except these events is a good indicator that something's wrong. Please don't remove the npov until the statements are either not so one-sided, or until they're cited properly.

Also, please don't let this conflict (or whatever it is) spill into the other articles. for example, found in computer and video game genres: "It is also highly recomended, that newcomers of this genre avoid Battlecruiser Millenium, Universal Combat or any other Derek Smart games, as they tend to score rather low on most reviews and can leave a bad first impression". People don't need/want to know about this, at all.

On a personal aside, I understand that he made a lot of you mad, but grade school should have hardened you to this. I don't mean to sound condescending, but this is sad to see. For all you know he could be a decent guy, holding doors open for strangers and all that - but all I know about him now is that he got into a flamewar against howevermany people, and now those people hate him. And he made a game that those people didn't like, and he's ashamed of the fact that he didn't get a proper degree. --Slike2 06:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should probably take your problems with computer and video game genres over to that article's discussion, since a quick look shows that there really isn't a lot of crossover between editors here and editors there. And you are being condenscending, no one here has any personal vendetta against Derek Smart, everything in this article is a reflection of a popular consensus that already exists. (I don't even play video games and I've heard about most of it.) It does need citations though. - Lifefeed 13:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't a lot of crossover between editors here and at cv genres, but there is crossover between editors here and editors that would insert referances to how unpopular derek smart is where you just don't need them. And if all you're writing about is this consensus, then I think that this article could be moved to "derek smart controversy" - that is, after all, what this article's about, no? --Slike2 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well..

I think the emphasis from many of these editors here (a couple of whom don't seem to have had prior knowledge of the great flame war that Derek Smart participated in) is that a huge bunch of people hate Derek Smart, etc.

On the contary, apart from those who were offended by Derek Smart's occassional racist comment or legal threat, the vast majority actually find Derek Smart's pointless rants quite entertaining.

I think 'grade school' has hardened the majority of people who know about Derek Smart, hence why they have been goading Derek Smart on since 1994, because that is what they learnt in school.

And on the issue of the comments on his games not being relevant to the title, again on the contary they are vital towards the story of Derek Smart's adult life because the only thing people care and want to know about is Derek Smart's role in the Battlecruiser 3000 debacle and his part in the longest running flame war since records began.

I do not see anything wrong with this article and it is not doing anyone any harm.

Let it stand because lets face it, if Derek Smart actually did find this article offensive...blimey would you lot know about it!

81.178.203.55

Lambasted Lambasted Lambasted

This article uses the word "lambast" too much. 81.155.80.24

I think people need to use words that are universally understood. Also it seems people who dislike Derek and unfortunatly committ their lives to hating him (a real waste of time) are just editing this page to further their own goals or ideals.--- Mrja84 02:53pm (EST)

3000 AD Games

Good edits to the "Universal Combat" section, 70.224.90.25. You really improved that paragraph. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Copy Protection

Some of these titles have some pretty heavy copy-protection. You can't get them to run on a machine that has Visual C++ installed, for example. Anybody think we should bring that up?

Vandalism

It never ceases to amaze how much time and effort people put into disparaging and libeling others. The 'verifiable sources' part of the Wikipedia rules doesn't seem to have struck home with some people posting all manner of crap in this section. Like the latest attacks, vandalism and downright unverifiable material recently posted.

This is exactly why this whole Wikipedia concept has been taking such a beating in the news lately whereby people are deliberately posting lies, fabrication, unverifiable and unsubstantiated material etc etc.

Supreme_Cmdr 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In a small way, this was partly my fault. I added this page to my watchlist to look for vandalism, but, as you can see, I got some of it, but not all (that was before I learned how to use Wikipedia's page comparisons). Hopefully, in the future, crap like this won't slip under the radar. I don't think this is really a case of "verifiable sources" so much as pure vandalism. I couldn't possibly believe that whoever added that believed it, but just wanted to cause some mischief. Anyways, no one ever said Wikipedia was perfect. Thankfully, it's taken care of now. (Though with your constant googling of your own name, I can't imagine any vandalism lasting for very long. Sorry, couldn't resist.) Cheers.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my last edit

I added back the critical information because the fact that they ARE claimed is verifiable. The site that attacks Derek Smart is obviously one-sided, but it is one of the largest, most well known websites regarding him. It's an external link. Wikipedia makes no claims as to its truth or bias, but leaving the link out is a disservice to the reader who may be interested in all major links related to the article. As for the snippet regarding criticisms of the game, they have been stated in numerous reviews on the internet by respected sites. I think the article does a decent job at retaining NPOV by showing the counter, that the game is supposed to have depth, and therefore is likely to be complicated. Finally, regarding the whole mess about the PhD, as far as I know, there are ample records showing that, for a long time that was in fact how Smart signed his name.

Regards, -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Closer examination revealed much of the omitted information not as being unverifiable, but as being repetitive. So I took out much of it again. I did leave in the part about his signing his name, but I made it past tense as he hasn't done that consistently anymore (or so I believe; feel free to give evidence negating this), and I omitted the word "failure" as that is POV.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Werewolves

Link in question: Werewolves

That external link DOES deserve a place in the article. It does NOT reflect Wikipedia's views or have Wikipedia's support in any way. It's merely a link to a site that is EXTREMELY germane to this article. When you do a google search of "Derek Smart," Werewolves is the very first page to come up. If that doesn't make it notable, I have no idea what does.

If you have problems with libel, you can take it up with THAT site, not here. Wikipedia's job is to catalogue information, including documenting important events and claims regardless of whether the claims THEMSELVES are verifiable. In other words, if a claim is verifiably notable and existent, it deserves a place in the article as long as it is not treated as fact which it is NOT in any way here. It's for that very reason that we have articles on notable conspiracy theories. We're not claiming they're true in any way, we're documenting it, as that is our job.

Finally, please don't condescend to the other editors here regarding reading the guidelines, especially when your edits are all in reference to one page (presumably, a page about YOU, though that's speculation on my part).

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An added note: I editted the tagline for the link to make its bias more apparent; I hope this will at least show that the site is NOT regarded as being NPOV. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Urban legends and private emails posted on a partisan web site are not considered reliable sources. There's no way to verify who originally wrote them, if they've been modified since then, or even if what's been posted to that web site was ever sent as an email at all. It doesn't matter if it is true: it must be verifiable. Linking to a site full of nonsense is no more acceptable than adding that nonsense directly. And you know better. If you want to carry on some kind of personal grudge, do it on your own time, Hintori: Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-8 T 06:08 Z

First of all, let me remind you to assume good faith. I have absolutely NO personal grudge against Derek Smart. I have never purchased one of his games, and I have never participated in the flame war, EVER. I have reverted vandalism on this page, and I've even deleted paragraphs of criticism that were repetitive, so I find your assumption that I'm acting on some kind of vendetta to not only be unfair and unfounded but extremely insulting. Secondly, the site is NOT posted as a RELIABLE SOURCE. It's posted as an external link that is germane to the topic at hand. As I said, Wikipedia has much information on things that are not considered reliable (like conspiracy theories) because they're notable. As long as our information REGARDING the topic is verifiable, then it's fair game. In this case, an external link does NOT have to be a reliable source, any more than a famous fan site of a certain celebrity or community (e.g. theforce.net for Star Wars). In this case, as I mentioned, Werewolves is the #1 site on google when you search Derek Smart. If that doesn't make it notable, I don't know WHAT DOES.

I'm putting it back in. If you decide to take it out again, I won't continue to do so, but I do suggest we seek mediation, if that's ok with you.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

67.121.211.69 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) The majority of the Werewolves material is not composed of private emails. The majority of the material is public posts from usenet (as shown by Newsgroups: in the headers) which are archived in numerous locations in addition to the Werewolves site.

"Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are based on credible sources and in a manner that do not overwhelm the article."

A link at the bottom of the article does not qualify as overwhelming.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am removing the link because its inclusion violates Wikipedia guidelines. Indulge your personal grudge (and you have made it abundantly clear that this is exactly what it is) on your own web site, not here. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-9 T 04:40 Z

Hi, I'm not sure if you deliberately ignored my comment above. As promised, I won't revert it again, but I feel that mediation may be the best approach seeing as how your attitude here seems to indicate that common ground will be difficult to obtain. May I remind you again to assume good faith. I have no personal grudge against Derek Smart as per my comments above, and I'm interested in hearing how I've made "abundantly clear" that I do. Please let me know if you are willing to allow mediation to proceed. Cheers.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--

Most of the information at the website is either bogus or libelous. Only detractors don't know that. Heck, he even has a page in which he claims that Smart suffers from NPD (?). That page - like the rest of them - are linked to at that site. He suffers from NPD? So how exactly is that confirmed? How about the page in which he claims that Smart altered an email? Something that was vehemently disputed (by both sides) on Usenet? He has that as fact as well. Every time someone removes that URL from the WiKi, you put it back in; knowing fully well that it serves no purpose whatsoever. If we're going to allow that, we might as well grab all links for every WiKi person and just host. Some of the emails are also clear forgeries (compare to their Usenet originals)

Can you please point me to one of the posts on the Werewolves site that differs from the Usenet originals? (The few that I crosschecked were identical). 129.188.33.222 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

btw I'm not Smart. I just happen to use this handle because I'm a fan of his games. If he asks me to change my handle, I will; but I don't think he cares. Supreme_Cmdr 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you say you're not Smart, then I'm not going to challenge you, though I did find your use of his commonly used handle, the freely used term of "libelous," and the fact that this is the only page you've editted to be indicative. Not that it matters either way. The point I'm making here is that posting the link as an external link says absolutely nothing about the quality of the information at the link itself. The only test is whether or not the link is notable. I clearly described the link as being by detractors, so anyone clicking on it would know full well that it would probably be heavily biased. As for the link's notability, you still haven't answered how it is NOT notable despite being the number one link for "Derek Smart" on google. As I've made very, very clear, Wikipedia is a place of information, and information includes information ABOUT non-verifiable things. As long as the information itself is verifiable, it's fair game, and in the case of notability should be included. In this case, the fact that there ARE detractors and that they have a very notable website about Smart is both verifiable and notable, and should be included. I emphasize again, posting a link in the external link section says absolutely nothing about the link's content other than its notability.

Please refer to my examples above as to why this is the case.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If the information is not verifiable, then it is against Wikipedia policy to include it. If a site mnakes even a tacit attempt to verify its contents, then perhaps an argument can be made for including a link to it on Wikipedia. This is not the case with this "werewolves" site. Ergo, a link to that site will be deleted each time you add it, until such time as that site contains verifiable information.

As for "challenging" Supreme_Cmdr, let me remind you to assume good faith. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-10 T 04:24 Z

You're still ignoring my arguments above as well as my question regarding getting mediation. Links in the external links section are NOT subject to the same policies as content in the encyclopedia itself. E.g. ebaumsworldsucks.com being in the ebaumsworld article; it's obviously fiercely POV and doesn't provide any justification for its claims but it's NOTABLE and GERMANE and therefore it's included. I promised not to revert it back and kept that promise; it's insulting that you're implying I would continue to do so, despite my reassurance that I wouldn't. Finally, I find it extremely ironic that you tell me to assume good faith when you haven't done so with me one bit, going so far as to imply I'm a liar with a personal grudge when neither of those things are true in the slightest. As with all your other negative assumptions about me, you haven't provided any evidence for this either. If you would be so kind as to explain why you think I have assumed anything other than good faith with Supreme_Cmdr, I'd be much obliged. As I seem to recall, I expressly stated I would not challenge him. Again, will you support a request for mediation or not?

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sweet Cthulu... I do NOT want to get involved in this right now. *Sigh* Look, most of this argument isn't even on topic; you're freely swapping out policy that pertains to WP-created text within the article with external link policy. The policies are NOoOoOt the same thing. No amount of wishing, cajoling or "logical" "common sense" rationalizations will make it so.

That external link is the primary information source for the bulk of Derek Smart's notoriety. Derek Smart has no say in what he's known for: do you think that when an entity like Penny Arcade makes a one-off joke involving Smart, gives no background and their millions and millions of readers still get the joke, is that because Smart "stuck around and didn't disappear"? Well, when I put it like that, I guess that's true, but werewolves is the primary example of why he DIDN'T disappear, and why anyone but a rarefied few still know him by name. How many other PC game designers are that widely recognized by the public at large? Molyneux? Romero? Spector? Maybe Garriot?

Bottom line: Smart is famous for controversy, and werewolves, whether any of the information is true or not, is the best public record of that controversy: the forum posts, the usenet discussions, the emails. If you want it removed, provide something to take its place. I would also like to add that BB and Suprm, while you've been running rough-shod over Hinotori on this page, you are by no means in the majority or representing concensus. Please keep that in mind and keep the heavy-handedness to a minimum.

Fox1 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox1 you are mostly wrong and dragging in semantics which don't even support the general argument. Now you, like Hintori, are appearing to be combative. You folks for some reason want to turn this Wiki into your public forum for misinformation and personal attacks. That ain't gonna happen. Since you two think that this is just a consensus for both of you I have sent Smart an email. Lets just wait until he shows up and see what happens going forward.

If anyone wants to learn about Smart, they can gleam the same exact information by Googling the groups without being subjected to the libelous (e.g. Huffman's psychoanalysis) and one sided presentation of Huffman's site. Thats like asking the Republicans to look up information about George Bush on Bill Clinton's site. Under any circumstance and legal precedent (of which there are several) Huffman's site would have ceased to exist by now and the archive flushed by Google (as they have done in other cases) if Smart pressed a lawsuit and prevailed. Any person with common sense knows right away that it just takes one lawsuit citing for e.g. Huffman's claim that Smart suffers from NPD and the site is gone. That information like everything else on Huffman's site, is not verifiable and therefore does not meet with the Wiki guidelines.

You also had no business putting the link back in when in fact the matter was under cabal mediation. Thats just arrogant. I have removed it. Lets keep doing that until the end of the world. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 17:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm being combative? Really? I didn't think I was, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Let me clear up a few things here: first, mediation is not binding. Second, I was not a party to the mediation, at any point. Third, this is a perfect example of WHY I re-added the link: you have no interest in working towards concensus or compromise, and I fail to see why your preferred version should stay live during mediation.

None of the things you mention as some form of proof (site being taken offline, finding of libel, clearing of google cache) have ever actually happened. All that carries about as much weight as me saying "Derek Smart is actually a hyper-intelligent, shape-changing form of rock mold. He could prove it in a lawsuit, but he doesn't want to go to the trouble." You seem very concerned with verifiability in external links (where that isn't policy), but you expect WP to bend to the whim of your own unbacked claims? I fail to see the consistency there.

P.S. Stop using the word libel, seriously. At this point, I don't think anyone's being swayed by your overuse of a legal term that you are completely unable to back up with any legal findings or documentation. You're simply throwing it in in place of "not nice," I think the veneer of authority has worn thin, there.

P.P.S. If Smart wants to grace us with his presence, that is, of course, his right. He will not, however, be given any greater authority to change this page than any other editor, and for any claims he makes, he will still need to provide a basis within WP policy for them to be valid input. Also, I believe individuals are discouraged from contributing to articles about themselves, but I will need to look that up.

Fox1 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

It looks like Hinotori has a point. Including a site in the links section is different from quoting it to the article text. Any reservations about the site's content can be expressed in a text explanation beside the link. Wikipedia cannot be accused of libel or POV for merely offering one link among several. I wonder why some editors are unwilling to discuss mediation. It seems to be a good idea. Durova 18:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, including a site with links is the same as quoting it. You can't take yourself too seriously if you argue otherwise. How different is it from telling someone to open up page 6 of a newspaper and just showing them a clipping of page 6? He doesn't have a point at all. There are literally millions of links on the Net about dsmart, why this link so important to some people? It is important because it has been a primary source of libelous and defamatory material against dsmart. If it was just a site with opinions that would be a different issue entirely. Instead not only does it go as far as posting actionable forgeries and libelous material it also has goes as far as copyright infringment. All of which do not meet the criteria for Wiki inclusion. It is also notable to point out that 99% of the material is not verifiable. Supreme_Cmdr

First of all, saying that someone (Durova in this case) can't take his or herself seriously if said person disagrees with you is teetering on the border of WP:NPA. Please respect the other editors here. Secondly, I don't see why you can't understand that this link isn't just important to "some" people. Obviously, it's important to many people if Google considers it more relevant to "Derek Smart" than Derek Smart's own website, the official Battlecruiser website, and even this very article. As for meeting the "criteria for Wiki inclusion," that's not germane to the argument here. I've made this point over and over, so maybe an example will better help you to understand. Please go to 9/11 conspiracy theories and tell me how many of the external links in the first half there contain "verifiable" information. They don't. They're posted there because they're obviously relevant to the article itself. Just like criticism (which, in all honesty is what Derek Smart is most known for: his conflagrations online) is relevant to this article here. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You see? This is another example of you being confrontational. The phrase "taking one's self too seriously" doesn't even get anyway near WP:NPA. This link is not important to anyone but the detractor who created it. Smart has sued several of Bill Huffman's (the site author) ISPs in the past and successfully had them take it offline. He sensibly stopped doing when when he realized obviously that no matter how many times he did that Huffman would just pop it up elsewhere. Only a lawsuit would take it down for good. Smart has posted several times (I will seek out a most recent link) that he lives in Florida while Huffman lives in San Diego California. Making any lawsuit an expensive proposal and probably a pointless one if Huffman only gets a smack on the wrist. Also, Google does not consider it relevant. Thats just semantics. Google is a web crawler and doesn't endorse anything about what it crawls and archives. There is nothing of interest on Smart's website so it does not get as many views. IIRC he only got those domains because someone was squatting on one of them. There is a Usenet post about that somewhere I believe. I refuse to believe that you are pursuing this because of the principle or anything to do with WiKi. Accuse me of being confrontational if you want but there is more going on here with you than meets the eye and this discussion is becoming more and more like the Usenet discussions on Smart. Supreme_Cmdr

[The werewolves site contains the original usenet headers which may be used to locate and compare the werewolves material with the original usenet posts in any of the usenet archives. The majority of the material is not private emails as User_talk:Bblackmoor has claimed] 144.189.40.222 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The site does contain original Usenet posts but that is not the point and is not what the current discussion is about. Aside from the Usenet posts and other material (libelous according to dsmart) there is a wealth of unverifiable material. Anyone wanting to read Usenet posts can go to Google. That is not why the Werewolves site was created. Supreme_Cmdr

Verifiability is also not an issue for external links, as I state below. Anybody wanting to find almost any of the external links we feature on Wikipedia articles can find them on Google too. The criteria are notability and relevance. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That right there is the point isn't it? This WiKi is about Smart. If this were a Bio do you think that this site would even be mentioned other than what is already mentioned in the intro about Smart and his supporters and detractors? The link has no place in this Wiki and you know it. Supreme_Cmdr

PETA, George Bush, and McDonalds don't have a lot in common, but they all seem to accept having inflamatory external links in Wikipedia. Is Derek Smart less of a man than George W. Bush? Is 3000AD run as well as McDonalds? Are detractors more obnoxious than meat-eaters? I say No, Yes, and Maybe. These passionate people/organizations and their supporters are able to accept disagreeable/inflamatory external links without feeling a duty to remove such. Their Wiki pages are much older however, perhaps they also had growing pains during their development during which such links were removed.

The Wiki PETA page contains links to http://www.peta-sucks.com/ and http://www.phuckpeta.com/

The Wiki George W. Bush page contains links to http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/ and http://www.michaelmoore.com/

The Wiki McDonalds page contains links to http://www.mcspotlight.org/ and

On the one hand, please do not mistake me for either a "supporter" or "detractor" of Derek Smart. I don't know him, never met him, and have never played his games. He's no one to me. My only concern is that Wikipedia articles comply with Wikipedia policies. On the other hand, the links to which you refer are not merely one person's gripes page about a specific individual or organization: they contain credible sources, and they represent more than one person's grudge. This "werewolves" site, on the other hand, is merely one person's unverified (and in some cases provably fabricated) complaints. It is irresonsible to include such information in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-17 T 19:33 Z

Thanks for taking the time to look this page over, Durova. I forgot to mention on this talk page that I filed an RfC regarding this article here. I still won't change it back for now, preferrably until I get one or two more opinions. If I do so, as a compromise, I'll make the POVness and sketchiness of the site's information more obvious. As for mediation, I made repeated attempts to get BBlackmoor to consider it, including a note on his talk page, but it seems that he's intent on ignoring all such considerations. In all honesty, since the issue is just a singular link (albeit a very important one), I really would rather have tried alternative methods to an RfC, but I didn't see any other option since mediation has to be voluntary by both parties. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your RfC because the facts of this matter are quite clear. I failed to even see the need for mediation. The question is, do you want dsmart himself to get involved in this and draw attention from the masses of detractors and supporters and turn this into a pointless debate as Usenet once was? I don't know what you have at stake here nor am I going to hazard a guess as to your motivation but its becoming more and more curious to me. Supreme_Cmdr

Alright, let's all take a step back for a moment as this has become exceedingly confrontational (which is partly my own fault, I admit). First of all, I think it's obvious why I'm seeking mediation or outside comment; it's clear there isn't a consensus here regarding the subject at hand. As for whether or not I want Derek Smart or his detractors or his supporters to come in and turn this into a giant flame war, of course I don't. But I do stand by my arguments above. External links do not have to be verifiable; the only relevant test is whether a reader coming across this article would benefit by being aware of its existence. Considering it's the most notable website regarding the topic (as per Google), I think it passes that test. Refer to my examples above: ebaumsworldsucks for ebaumsworld, theforce.net for Star Wars, etc. Wikipedia is full of articles with external links that have unverifiable information or a clearly biased POV, and no, you should not take them out, because they're there for relevant reference, not as a source of reliable information. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alright, let's all take a step back for a moment as this has become exceedingly confrontational (which is partly my own fault, I admit)." As far as I can tell, the only person being confrontational is you. For the rest of us, this is simply a matter of compliance with Wikipedia policies. If you think we are mistaken, of course, you are welcome to pursue whatever Wikipedia conflict resolution mechanism you think is appropriate. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-13 T 04:16 Z

Well, I'm glad I finally got your attention, even if it took an RfC to do so. I'm not sure how you're drawing the conclusion that I'm the only one being confrontational seeing as how you were the first to assume that I had a personal grudge against Smart, which is not only false, but also unfounded. But if that's how you see it, then I apologize for somehow giving that impression. I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I've given a number of examples and explained, in detail, why your view of "Wikipedia policies" (namely NPOV and verifiability) do not apply to links that are provided in an external link section. If you would, at the least, tell me how my examples and reasoning is wrong, other than saying the same thing repeatedly, I'd be much obliged.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 06:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Well, I'm glad I finally got your attention, even if it took an RfC to do so." You didn't "get my attention", and I'm not concerned one way or another about your RFC. If you think an RFC will be productive, you have my blessing. Personally, I don't see the need for it, but I certainly don't object to it. As for "getting my attention", this is more of you being confrontational -- why you want to make editing a Wikipedia article into some kind of personal crusade, I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with me. May I suggest that you try to focus less on "challenging" people and "getting their attention", and more on simply contributing relevant, notable, verifiable information to Wikipedia? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-13 T 17:32 Z

Again you're focusing on ME and not my argumentation. Forget me. Address the argumentation and examples as you have yet to do so. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Again you're focusing on ME ..." When we pay attention to your edits and respond specifically to those, you complain that we aren't responding. When we do respond to your needlessly confrontational comments, you complain that we're "focusing on you". I repeat my suggestion that you stop making this a personal crusade, stop trying to provoke some kind of argument, and just focus on contributing good, verifiable content. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-13 T 20:54 Z

BBlackmoor, as far as I can tell, I've been exceedingly civil to both you and Supreme_Cmdr despite the amount of condescension and assumptions about my integrity thrown my way. I heard you the first thousand times you've told me to focus on contributing "good, verifiable content" whereas you have never, not once in all the muddle on this talk page, addressed my AND others' examples and arguments as to why the policies you're citing simply are not applicable in the external link section of an article in the same way as they are in the rest of the article. If they were, the ebaumsworld article would not have "www.ebaumsworldsucks.com", the PETA page would not have "www.phuckpeta.com", etc etc. I'm just not invested enough to list all the reasons why you're off the mark for the millionth time, but they're all in this talk page, and furthermore, history indicates you'd ignore them even if I did. As far as contributions are concerned, this tool seems to indicate that I have almost twice as many contributions in the article space as you have while you have nearly THREE times as many edits in the talk space. I really wonder who here enjoys confrontation and argumentation more. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And here we have, yet again, Hinotori being needlessly confrontational. The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss the article. Discuss the article, Hinotori. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-17 T 20:28 Z

The RfC was a reasonable move in this situation. I hope you reach agreement. Durova 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whew, maybe it would be a good idea to take a day or two off for cooldown. All this fuss over one link? Durova 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Huffman

This is the guy who started this whole Smart business back in 1997 and the person who has the Werewolves site dedicated to ridiculing (I am not citing libel because I cannot make that determination). He works at NCR in San Diego and has had several email addresses over the years.

So who wants to start a page on this guy? It will only paint a perfect picture of a net stalker and if nothing else give another side to this issue. The guy has no other online contribution (as far I can tell) but to Smart. He has been banned from several forums where Smart hangs out because he used to show up there and do the same thing he did on Usenet before Smart stopped posting there several years ago. Here is an example of the sentiments by most of us who have been around since the beginning.

There was even an incident of one of Huffman's followers (some kid named Louis who lived near Smart) stalking Smart in real life. He was arrested and turned out to be a juvenille and even posted that Huffman put him up to it. He has since disappeared. Smart reportedly has to move from his residence after that incident.

There was another incident where Huffman and his followers were attempting to locate the name of Smart's newborn baby. IIRC a police report was also filed for that incident.

There are thousands of posts on Usenet and websites cataloging this guy's behavior. Someone needs to collect all of them. Here are a few.

Supreme_Cmdr 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A Princeton professor weighs in on Smart's credentials
Bill Huffman as net stalker
Bill Huffman on Smart's supposed NPD
Huffman and friends attempt to locate Smart's child
Bill Huffman
The Louis incident
Bill Huffman
POE
QT3
AV

On the subject of things being notable, relevant, and verifiable, if (and I do mean IF) the activities of this Huffman person have been reported in respectable media (per Wikipedia guidelines), then I do see a way for Hinotori to include his link: add a section to the Derek Smart article about this Huffman person and his history of stalking Derek Smart, and include Hinotori's link in that section. Or perhaps give Huffman his own article on Wikipedia, and provide a link to it from the Derek Smart article. If this information on Huffman is verifiable, that would be a permitted way to include the "information" that Hinotori wants included. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-01-13 T 17:06 Z

In all honesty, I considered researching and writing a section on this, but eschewed the idea because I figured that would draw MORE opposition. Perhaps this would be a workable compromise. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of Town for Four Days

I'm going to be gone for about four days. So if I don't respond to any comments here or on my talk page, that's the reason why. In the meantime, I would be happy if either Bblackmoor or Supreme_Cmdr would carefully consider the examples and arguments I provided. Good editting and fair days. Cheers. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal request

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 this article. The Mediation Cabal request page is here:

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

I would be exceptionally grateful if any interested parties who are involved in the dispute 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) 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links Propriety

I added the following on the Wikipedia External Links Page on January 20th - no response yet.:

"foe sites Does the prescription of ok-to-add for fan sites apply to also Foe sites? By Foe sites I mean a site which has negative views of the subject of the article.

As a specific case, is it allowed to include the link A collection of materials by detractors dedicated to criticism of Derek Smart in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Smart ?

Arguments for are that it is the number one site for a google query of the article's subject and that it contains a large amount of information.

Does a high google page rank for a search reflect its notability?

Arguments against are that the information is mainly usenet posts and private emails and is therefore non-verifiable and also that the author seems like an internet stalker.

Does non-verifiability disqualify an external link.

Note that the Werewolves site is very one-sided and consists mainly of excerpts (with headers) of usenet posting and private emails with the site author's comments and conclusions. The conclusions do appear (to me at least) to follow from the referenced postings, except perhaps for the author's attempt at psychoanalysis.

Note, this specific instance was under mediation until one of the participants withdrew with no consensus, but a general opinion on the propriety of external links to foesites would be appreciated. And requirements that would qualify/disqualify a site from being and external link would be appreciated.

"Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. " "

I have just been reading Bblackmoor's page and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Slo-mo revert war

Seems to be more reverting than discussing here, at any rate. I've had a glance at the disputed link, and it does seem to be a) highly uncomplimentary, and b) the top-ranked hit on this person, pipping this very article to that signal honour. Would a more guarded description of this link and its contents be of any use to anyone? Is there still a consensus to include it, given the last two comments seem to be against doing so? And, no more breaking the WP:3RR, please -- fair warning to all parties. Alai 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The people advocating its inclusion are the ones engaged in the revert war. There is no consensus either way, other than to point to the Wiki rules which clearly go against its inclusion as non-verifiable material. Even the recent revisions I made were due to unverifiable comments. People are using his Wiki page as their personal soapbox. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What can I do to get you to address the fact that verifiabilty policies don't apply to external links?

• Verifiabilty policies don't apply to external links.
• Verifiabilty policies don't apply to external links.
• Verifiabilty policies don't apply to external links.

"The people advocating its inclusion are the ones engaged in the revert war?" How exactly would it be a revert WAR if only one side was engaged? I normally NEVER revert multiple times per day except for obvious vandalism, the only reason I reverted 3 times on the one day was that I suspected you would unapologetically roll right over the 3RR limit. I was right, by the way.

I assure you, this page is not my soapbox. Take a look at the top of this talk page, the FIRST comment is me, after I had done some early rewriting (here's the diff here: [3]) and had started NPOVing the article and watching the article for vandalism. Let me assure you, the vandalism I was reverting was not PRO-Smart vandalism, there's been a remarkably low volume of that.

When BB, who I've worked with amicably on at least one other conflict, had issues with the soda machine story, we were able to come up with a good compromise that we both were happy with and was within policy. You have no interest in working with anyone else, you want to be this page's dictator. Heck, the only reason I even still CARE about this issue is that I don't respond well to dictators.

Fox1 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)