From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Statement by Swatjester 3 Statement by Bill Huffman 4 Statement by Jeffness 5 Statement by Nandesuka 6 Statement by Steel359 7 Statement by Supreme Cmdr 8 Statement by WarHawkSP 9 Statement by Kerr avon 10 Statement by Nuggetboy 11 Statement by involved user Beaker342 12 Preliminary decisions 12.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1) 12.2 Temporary injunction (none) 13 Final decision 13.1 Case summary 13.2 Principles 13.2.1 Conflict of interest 13.2.2 Transparency in editing 13.2.3 Article quality and sourcing 13.2.4 Neutral point of view and sources 13.2.5 Biographies of living persons 13.2.6 Biased or malicious content in biographical material 13.2.7 Personal attacks 13.3 Findings of fact 13.3.1 Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts 13.3.2 Article raises concerns about quality 13.3.3 Supreme Cmdr has engaged in personal attacks 13.3.4 Bill Huffman 13.3.5 Outside comments 13.3.6 Derek Smart 13.3.7 Surrogates of Derek Smart 13.4 Remedies 13.4.1 Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts 13.4.2 Referred for cleanup 13.4.3 Supreme Cmdr 13.4.4 Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates 13.4.5 Derek Smart 13.5 Enforcement 13.5.1 Enforcement by block 13.6 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• Kerr avon (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Steel359 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• WarHawkSP (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mael-Num (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jeffness (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Beaker342 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Nuggetboy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Possibly Derek Smart, the subject of the article

• Numerous anonymous IP addresses.

• Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Statement by Swatjester

Summary: This article has been involved in an edit war back and forth for some time now. Derek Smart is a controversial figure, and the edit wars are centering around the inclusion or removal of certain criticisms of Smart, in some cases from cited sources. Relevent policies in question are WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP. There have been a number of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts on the article. The article was recently protected to stop the edit warring. Within hours of the unprotection, the article was in the midst of a revert war once again. Threats of "libel" have been made on the talk page. (Note: at the time of this editing multiple users, both involved on both sides, and uninvolved, agree with this summary of the dispute and the points below)

It has been repeatedly suggested on WP:AN/I and the BLP Noticeboard that this case be brought to arbitration.

I am as close to an uninvolved user as I can be on this article, though I will admit in the interest of full disclosure I have reverted I believe twice on the article. I have been trying to mediate the edit warring and constant reversions on this article. However, it seems that there is no other solution than ArbCom at this point. Something very strange is going on here: there are multiple single purpose accounts, IP's making the same edits, many of which come from the same geographic location as Smart. Smart has made it clear on his personal forums that he is aware of the dispute over his page and has remarked with interest to "wiki jihad".

The crux of the dispute appears to be over the inclusion of several edits, most of them sourced, that are highly critical of Smart. The edits come from the Opposable Thumbs column of Ars Technica, as well as the Daily Victim comic, and a usenet posting in which Smart has verifiably commented. There is a group that opposes the edits and continually reverts them, and a group that wants them in and continually reverts them. Most users that I have seen that are on "good behavior", i.e. no block history, knowledge of policy, not vandals etc., are of the opinion that the edits are relevant and should be included. However, the editors who do not wish to see these edits included have made it very clear that they will not under any circumstances allow them to be included.

Several instances of extreme incivility and personal attacks have accompanied these edits, in summaries and in edit text. Several editors have violated 3RR on this, in some cases over 6 reverts.

There also appears to be some sort of outside organization coming from Smart's forums, as well as sockpuppets, and IP editing to get around the 3RR. Further, there seems to be an issue with Smart himself possibly editing the article: The IP addresses resolve to Ft. Lauderdale, where Smart's offices are located, and checkuser requests on the subject have turned up inconclusive, but notably not rejecting the theory.

One user, Supreme Cmdr, has already been banned from editing the article.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case and investigate further, there is something severely wrong with this edit war.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Nanedesuka's statement that the case not only has to deal with the content of the article, but the behavior of the authors. I see 5 major points of arbitration:
  • Point 1: The edit warring and behavior of the editors and SPAs.
  • Point 2: The inclusion of the werewolves site as a valid source
  • Point 3: The inclusion of the Ars Technica column as a valid source
  • Point 4: The inclusion of UseNet postings by Smart, as accessed by Google Groups, as a valid source.
  • Point 5: The inclusion of the soda machine incident, as well as other critical sources as a valid inclusion
    • A subpoint to this includes other sources critical to smart, such as the numerous Daily Victim webcomics (a highly relevant comic since it had extremly high readership and was written by major gaming portal Gamespy.) and other sources.

I urge the ArbCom to keep in mind that Smart is a subject where a large majority of the material is highly critical and his public portrayal is highly inflammatory. That's the reason for his fame. It does not seem that there would be a problem including relevant material praising Smart, if such material existed in great numbers. However, there is a great deal of relevant critical material, from major and reliable sources, and given the subject of this article, a non 50/50 weight towards criticism in the article would hardly be considered "undue weight".

[edit] Statement by Bill Huffman

There's little doubt in my mind that User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP are indeed Mr. Smart. I've probably read almost all of Mr. Smart's approximately 7,000 posts made in the Usenet flame war. He has a rather unique abrasive haughty writing style that I'm quite familar with. Based on that familarity alone I'm convinced that Mr. Smart is violating WP:AUTO. I don't believe that he will ever allow the Derek Smart article to contain anything that he perceives as criticism. This is based on my estimation of Mr. Smart as well as direct statements made by Supreme_Cmdr for example here's a diff. Here's the diff of the link description that Supreme_Cmdr considers WP:NPOV and the description that he says violates WP:NPOV.

Both User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP have multiple violations of WP:3RR. Both accounts are apparently WP:SPA. I suggest that part of the finding for the arbitration should be that these accounts are in violation of WP:SOCK or at least WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. If the accounts were banned from editing the Derek Smart article I believe that it will slow done the disruption but not eliminate it. This belief is supported by the fact that whenever both Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP were blocked from editting anon's popped up that picked up in the edit war where the WP:SPA accounts had left off. It is also based on Mr. Smart's declaration of Jihad against WP and statements on WP by Supreme_Cmdr that he will never allow the article to stand if he disagrees with it. I believe the only way the edit war will be completely stopped is if the article is deleted altogether (a solution that I believe is reasonable) or allow Mr. Smart to write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article (a solution that I believe is unreasonable). Regards, Bill Huffman 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't used my 500 words yet, :-) I thought I might add that I agree with everything said prior to Supreme_Cmdr's statement except that I personally doubt that Mael_Num is a Mr. Smart sockpuppet. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jeffness

I became involved in the Derek Smart article what seems like a few months ago, but is really only 3 weeks, after stumbling upon it via a friend. I started and completed a rewrite of the article that involved substantial changes, new and better citations and overall quality enhancements. Coming into it, I knew nothing about the article's subject and feel that puts me in a good position as an editor of the obviously controversial article. My experience over the last few weeks with this article has been rather harrowing. I knew what I was stepping into, but I never thought it would be this bad. In my opinion, the article is subject of an organized campaign to cleanse the article of properly cited information that is critical of the subject by none other than the subject of the article himself, thereby inciting WP:Auto violations. Certain users, namely user:WarHawkSP and User:Supreme_Cmdr as well as some random IP addresses that popped up when those 2 users were banned, all share the same writing style although sockpuppet checks have come back inconclusive. It should be noted that internet veterans like Smart are privy to things like Onion routing (see Tor_(anonymity_network)) and HTTP proxies that can obfuscate their real location on the internet, so it will never be conclusive. However, ample circumstantial evidence has been amassed to throw these users, their actions and edits, into question at the very least. They have been disruptive, revert warring, disagreeable and have a propensity to wikilawyer everything to death in the hopes we would just go away. This article is in dire straights and needs arbitration from above to resolve these issues.--Jeff 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Nuggetboy's statement: He's right about the coke machine thing and I also agree that Mael-Num is not WarhawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr and the IP's. He's a distinct entity. --Jeff 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Supreme Cmdr: "Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement." it says in the instructions..--Jeff 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Nandesuka

I concur with Swatjester's summary. To it I would simply add that the issue is not the content of the Derek Smart article but rather the behavior of the partes involved. The ArbCom should accept this case to put an end to what can only be described as abjectly unrepentant and incorrigible edit warring, sockpuppeting, and wikilawyering. Nandesuka 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I jointly concur with Nandesuka's addition ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Steel359

I'm not all that familliar with the disputed content, only that there's some negative information that Supreme Cmdr (and others) object to. I'm really just involved in this dispute as an administrator who has protected the article a few times and blocked a couple of users for edit warring. In the relatively short time I've been involved, there's been several ANI threads and an RfC, and I've found another RfC from August. This desperately needs an ArbCom ruling to end the dispute.

I consider User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP (including his old account User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num to be the same person. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether they're Derek Smart himself, but it would explain why all three have spent their entire Wiki-career removing negative information from the article. -- Steel 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Supreme Cmdr

I agree, in part, with SwatJester's summary except to add the following:

• I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor do I know who they. I am being accused of this by the same editors who seek to inject [WP:BLP] violating derogatory material into the Wiki and without opposition. Anyone who opposes, is accused of being a sock puppet. I would be willing to provide a member of the ArbCom committee my personal information, under strict confidentiality, so that they can verify this. It is my hope that WarHawkSP and the others being accused of this, will do the same.

• I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases. If he were involved in that page, given his history, he would either have been perma-banned or had the page deleted. These people don't know him well enough to make this call. The exception being Bill Huffman who has stalked him incessantly for going on ten years now. So as not to repeat what has already been posted about this Huffman person, I urge you to please read the summary poster here in the WP:BLP noticeboard.

• The problem with the article is that editors like Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman and their ilk want to re-write history and inject policy violating material into the Wiki. These include the following.

• Bill Huffman is a 'known net stalker of Derek Smart and has been so for almost ten years, starting from Usenet. He has a web page in which he alone makes claims about Derek Smart. Claims which are not factual, not cited by any news source on this planet and are based on one man's opinion. His cohorts have tried in vein and failed repeatedly to have his website added to the Wiki article. This is one of the issues that him, Kerr Avon and some others are still to this day trying to push. Knowing fully well that it violates WP:RS and WP:BLP specifically. Then they tried to pass through WP:EL. That effort too failed and sparked further WP:BLP discussions. The current consensus is that the site cannot be linked to nor quoted in the article. Period. But the ludicrousness of it all continued no less. The hilary reached new heights when they tried again - and failed - to reach a consensus (which they assumed would trump policy) on adding the link. But that didn't stop them from trying again and again.

Thats when Bill started along a new path. Claiming that since he wasn't editing the article - only the talk page - that he wasn't influencing anything. So the argument continues and continues despite the fact that apart from consensus, policy clearly prohibits Usenet posts. Lets not even go into the strict WP:BLP guidelines which they are conveniently ignoring.

• The problem is not with commentary critical of Smart, but rather about what commentary is allowed under policy and WP:BLP guidelines. Nobody is calling Smart an angel. But this is an encylopedia, not a debate about giving out the Nobel peace prize or a confirmation for office hearing. Those who are on one side, want to push pov by adding derogatory (e.g. this comment by Ben on his blog, not to mention unsourced material (e.g. this urban legend about a Coke machine) into the Wiki.

• I have been blocked several times for reverting this improper material. The other side then point to my blocks as proof that I have been disruptive, when in fact the post history proves otherwise. Recently WarHawkWP was blocked for reverting. By the time his block expired, the two items he was blocked for, were in the end not allowed into the article anyway. Several editors have seen this behavior on Wiki and not just on this page. To the extent that an ex-admin made this comment on another editor's page. That was before he was accused of being a sock puppet. Something that the opposing side couldn't seem to make up their mind about.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Beaker342 who said:

So you see, anyone can turn this into a popularity contest. Derek Smart is a game developer. He is also human and not infallible by any means. Those who don't like him, tend to take this premise and twist it to suit their own purposes, but it doesn't change the man nor the facts as they stand.

As to the biography of Derek Smart, there isn't a single thing that I've posted, that isn't sourced. Thats what an encyclopedia is about. Just because I know about it and you don't, doesn't make me an SPA. It just happens to be convenient for you folks to claim this because without myself and others to oppose you, the Wiki would be frought with inaccuracies and pov pushing.

Comment to uninvolved_User:JzG uninvolved_User:JzG] who said:

As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart...

Your mention of the duck test as it applies to this incident is as laughable and gullible as anyone on Wiki crying foul just because a group of people share the same views. There are other editors apart from myself, WarHawkSP etc who do not want to see the Wiki tainted with unsourced and derogatory material that has no place in it. You should be focused on that, as well as the premise for the ArbCom request, instead of expending energy trying to prove a negative with such an utterly silly and laughable inference. In this instance, and to my scientific brain, the duck test fails due to backward regression. And yet, you were able to read up on ten years and over 100K posts worth of flame war material in one sitting and came up with this conclusion. Yeah right. The only duck I see here is you. In other words, your $0.02c is worthless and based on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions with no factual basis in reality. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to SwatJester who said:

However, none of this has anything to do with Wiki policy and this is why most just don't get it. You can write anything you want in the Wiki as long as you adhere to policy of which WP:BLP has the strictest requirements and which most of these opposing editors (e.g. Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman) who don't like him (for whatever reason) seem to want to ignore so that they can further their agenda. These editors want to throw out policy, ignore guidelines and push pov. Hence the problem that the Wiki is having. An example is found right there in your statement above "where a large majority of the material is highly critical". Not only is that untrue, you have no way of producing sourced material that upholds that claim. The fact that you want to balance negative and positive material clearly indicates that you have lost sight of what the Wiki is about and that is exactly the problem that these editors have been having. You cannot push pov. Period. End of story.

Nobody cares if Smart is likeable, nice, pets cats, kicks dogs or pulls wings off butterflies, what he ate for breakfast, how many times he's been married, gotten laid or whatever. Nobody cares. What we do care about is that, as an encyclopedia, pertinent and relevant information be included because, guess what pal, this is a bio of a notable industry figure and is thus protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Like it or not, thats the way it is and nobody can just bend the rules as they see fit. Even Jimbo Wales has clearly and frequently talked about this.

[edit] Statement by WarHawkSP

I support the statement summary by SwatJester and also the synopsis by Supreme_Cmdr. I want to add that items of contention are :

1. Bill Huffman's patently libelous Werewolves website link. This fails not only WP:RS and WP:EL, but also every guideline in WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
2. The Opposable Thumbs journal commentary by Ben Kutchera of Ars Technica. This fails both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
3. Whether or not Derek Smart has a Ph.D and if it can be cited. There are claims that he has one, claims that he doesn't have one and further claims that he does have one but that it is from an unaccredited institution. Since there are no cited sources for either of the three, its inclusion fails WP:RS and most especially WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
4. Whether or not Usenet posts can be cited in the article. This one should be a no briner for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can turn the article and talk pages to a version of the Usenet flamewars. Especially seeing that Smart and a bunch of others exited the Usenet several years back, leaving Huffman and his friends to continue on with the farce.
5. Whether or not unsourced derogatory materials can be added. Again, this one should be a no brainer for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can dig up every derogatory thing that some Tom, Dick or Harry has posted about Smart, like this was a popularity contest.
6. Whether or not WP:BLP violating material can be removed from talk pages. This seems to be the case but there are those who are ignoring the policy guidelines on this. The clueless and/or biased admins aren't helping in this regard either.
7. Action needs to be taken against editors like Kerr whose sole purpose it is to taint the article with derogatory material, and when challenged, they get to violate WP:NPA and WP:Civil but consistently accusing other editor of being sock puppets, insulting them etc.

WarHawkSP 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kerr avon

Please kindly permit me to analyse the current problem, how it has arisen and why we request arbitration.

• Background -: Derek Smart is a game developer who has developed the battlecruiser (now universal combat) franchise. He has become notable in the internet and the gaming community [[1]] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre[2] [3], but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him [4] and the said games on the USENET [[5] (with signed postings)and various internet forums.

Derek Smart's contribution to the longest running flame war in the USENET history can be evidenced a google search [6] for his name which returns >50,000 entries.

Smart's controversial nature as perceived by the gaming industry is evident as even reviewers of his games start of the review by mentioning his aggresive stance [7]] in defence of his own games.

The Derek Smart wiki article has been the subject of numerous edit wars with predominantly the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses have been found to originate from fort lauderdale florida where Derek Smart resides [8] and whose ISP is bellsouth. They have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and 3rr violations due to trying to remove cited commentrary critical of Smart not only from the article but from the discussion pages as well.

Due to the similarity of their abrasive writing style to Smart's and due to the fact that both of their IP addresses originate from Derek Smart's residential area, and due their vehement opposition to inclusion commentrary critical of Smart in this wiki they have been strongly suspected by involved parties to be sock puppets of Derem Smart himself. It should be noted that Supreme_Cmdr is the alias that Smart himself uses on his own forum, and Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad"[9]. As such serious consideration should be given as to if this bio falls under WP:AUTO.

When WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr were blocked recently, the article and the talk page were semi protected due to repeated edit warring by rotating IP addresses WP:ANI#Derek_Smart_edit_warring_and_User:Mael-Num] which originated from Fort Lauderdale, where Smart lives, which precipitated this request for arbitration.

• Arbitration request -: We will need arbitration regarding the following key points.

1. Inclusion of the [ http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/] site.

So we need a arbitration ruling regarding whether the inclusion of the prominent werewolves site in the wiki biography as a external link would contravene the WP:BLP.

2. Whether Smart's own USENET postings can be cited in his biography to substantiate claims.

We need arbitration is Derek Smart's own USENET postings as verified by his singature and the headers which contain the USENET server etc can be used as cites in his bio. This is mainly due to the fact that by nature Smart's reason for prominence is his contribution to the mamoth USENET flame war, and a special case should be made in his case.

3. What commentrary critical of Smart should be permitted.

[edit] Statement by Nuggetboy

I am involved in the article as an editor, although I'm probably more involved in talk. This, I assume, is why I'm not listed on this RfAr. I concur almost completely with SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness. I do not agree with Swatjester's point 5 as I think the coke machine incident simply doesn't belong here, even if it were verifiable. However, the other points there are key to this issue.

Comment to Steel359 and JzG:

I disagree that User:Mael-Num is a Warhawk/Supreme Cmdr sockpuppet.

- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note Oops, didn't list you because I got my list from editors on the article history, not talk and you hadn't popped up. Sorry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Swatjester:

Could we get some links to support the following claim? I missed it the first time I read through your summary and it's very interesting.

There also appears to be some sort of outside organization coming from Smart's forums

- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by involved user Beaker342

I too have been invloved in the article both as an editor and in the talk section trying to resolve controversies. Like the other good faith editors of this article I have been stymied by the presence of a few beligerant SPAs, most notably Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk. I agree with almost everything that has been said so far by SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness, and would welcome an ArbCom ruling that would put to rest debates that have been raging for over a year now.

I would like to add two very brief points:

1. Smart is a controversial figure, and the article to be objective must reflect that. Smart is better known for his online behavior than for his computer games. Sumpreme Cmdr's claims otherwise are simply false. I'll cite the lead sentence in the review of his most recent game Universal Combat at the highly respected gaming site Gamepsot: “Controversy is an undocumented feature in games designed by outspoken developer Derek Smart.”

2. Besides being SPAs with a solitary interest in Smart and his games, removing anything critical of Smart in articles on him and his games, and being based out of Ft. Lauderdale where Smart lives, Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk have also repeatedly displayed preternatural knowledge of Smart’s business dealings [10] and legal history [11]. The fact that Supreme_Cmdr/Warhawk have intricate knowledge of Smart's biography that is not available to even the most dedicated of researchers stands as further circumstantial evidence that we are in fact dealing with WP:AUTO. --Beaker342 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 13:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 02:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Voting on this case. (now an active arbitrator) --FloNight 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Case summary

The Derek Smart article has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the Arbitration Committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

• apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
• the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
• concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
• questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Wikipedia that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

• comment on the article's discussion page, or
• contact a volunteer via e-mail for assistance.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency in editing

2) Wikipedia:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

• violate WP:3RR or other policy,
• evade a block, or
• avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, this Committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Passed 6 to 1, with 1 abstention, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view and sources

3.1) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that material, whether it be hagiographic, critical, or otherwise, should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

5) Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased or malicious content in biographical material

5.1) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details), see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Biased or malicious content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

6) Wikipedia:No personal attacks forbids personal attacks and harassment.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk • contribs), WarHawk (talk • contribs), WarHawkSP (talk • contribs), and Supreme Cmdr (talk • contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Passed 5 to 0, with 3 abstentions, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr has engaged in personal attacks

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a series of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Huffman

5) Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently Bill Huffman, compiler of werewolves.org, a site devoted to criticism of Derek Smart [12]. He has not edited Derek Smart, but has been active on its talk page and in this Arbitration case. The conflict between Bill Huffman and Derek Smart is longstanding [13] [14].

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comments

6) The doings here have been a source of comment on Gamers forums. From Quartertothree.com from the thread "Wikipedia": "check out the Derek Smart page", "Smart's finest hour", "one of the reasons he got the boot", [15], "stalker supreme", [16]. From another thread "Derek was actually pretty well-behaved around here until the stalkerati showed up and started prodding him."

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

7) Derek Smart is the successful developer of a family of PC games. In his on-line activities he is easily provoked interview in Computer Gaming World. On the forums on his gaming website he goes by the handle "Supreme Cmdr". "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". "Slight negative bias". He is dismissive with respect to the Wikipedia article on him (Registration and login is necessary to view forum links).

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrogates of Derek Smart

7.1) It is not ascertainable whether Derek Smart himself has edited the article, however there are a number of users such as Supreme Cmdr who have functioned as his surrogates, actively removing negative information and edit warring.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The Committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.

Passed 8 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Wikipedia editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Passed 4 to 0, with 4 abstentions, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr

3.1) For personal attacks and edit warring, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Passed 6 to 1, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates

7) Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing Derek Smart. They may edit the talk page.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

8) Any user may fully apply the principles and practices of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Derek Smart. This may include deletion of the article and its history as well as its talk pages and archives and the project pages and talk pages of this Arbitration proceeding.

Passed 5 to 1, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate duration. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• [17] 19:46, 2 March 2007 Newyorkbrad (Talk | contribs) blocked "Supreme Cmdr (contribs)" (anon. only, noautoblock) with an expiry time of 1 year (implementation of Arbitration Committee decision)
• [18] 17:02, 12 March 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BlindMoose (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Banned user Supreme Cmdr)

  Clear SPA, has full knowledge of the dispute and ArbCom case, first edit to the article was to remove the same section Supreme Cmdr didn't like, similar inflammatory tone on the talk page. – Steel 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)