User talk:Bill Huffman/archive

Pacific Western University
This is a very sensitive topic. Please see Office Actions; you'll note that Pacific Western University is on the list of office-protected articles, one of just 7 among the 1.5 million articles in the English language Wikipedia. You may want to read the full article history and talk page, including the archive of older talk page remarks. --A. B. (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you A.B.. I fully appreciate the wise approach that it is better safe than sorry. However, the current state of the PWU article is misleading in my POV because not mentioning unaccredited implies accredited in the minds of most people. I think the article should be deleted altogether or perhaps leave it totally blank if that is required to keep it "protected". I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the legal situation is that the only degree that PWU can legally offer is in business administration. None of the other degrees have been approved by the BPPVE. Unfortunately the BPPVE has been "out to lunch" for a number of years and has not been able to do anything since closing down Columbia Pacific University. Bill Huffman 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy Western University: "Shown" vs "Implied"
Yes its good that you changed the term "diploma mill" to "substandard".

But whats up with using the term "shown" in that sentence? To use this term means that a definative conclusion was drawn.

Now we had this whole discussion and nobody is going to budge one way or another. You think the hearing was fair and the witness was credible. I think the whole thing was biased and did not prove anything. And I really have a problem believing that anyone can earn 40% of their credit in 16 hours (or whatever it was). I would love to talk to that person and find out how she did it, because I certainly have no idea.

So maybe, possibly can we do something to show a little neutrality here?

Peace Piercetp 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pierce, I suggest that you make a proposal on the KWU talk page. Perhaps the wording could be based on the wording prior to what it said before the obvious NPOV violation? I think it is better discussed on the KWU talk page because future editors might benefit from it. Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway addressing your point about how she did it. She studied the Table of Contents and Index then took the test. She had to take the first test twice before learning this technique. Perhaps the only two tests out of everything offered by KWU were the two that she took, if so it would be an amazing coincidence, but the life experience credits given to her was also a gross violation of academic rigor. The new policies put in place are significantly different from WNU. Doesn't that further prove that KWU was academically substandard? It seems an obvious truth to me that KWU was/is academically substandard. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on whether of not the exam taken involves caluculations. I can tell you that the tests were all timed tests and consisted of anywhere from 20 to 40 questions. I would say that its not that easy.


 * Now about the article... well we will keep that discussion on the talk page.


 * Have a happy holiday season. Piercetp 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic Fraud
You did bring up the subject of Academic fraud regarding unaccredited universities. I kind of have a pet peeve of my own that i would like to talk to you about.

You might be interested to know that there is a great deal of fraud concerning student athletes, particularly those on Football and Basketball teams.

I happen to know this because I have a friend who teaches History at University of Illinois. U of I has very strict admission standards for virtually all students. I myself could not be admitted as a Freshman in fact.

But this person I know actually taught a remedial course on social sciences to get students who do not have the necessary aptitute to learn at a University level. And guess what, all his students were athletes.

One rather funny story, there was this big ox of a man, a lineman for the Football team. And this guy got a 10 on his ACTs. I myself cannot imagine how anyone can score a 10. Even if you guess the answers I would say you can do better than than.

But in my opinion, I think that when you allow people in a competitive university based solely on their abilities to perform at a sport than you are being unfair to the other students.

Maybe we can both agree that this kind of academic fraud is something that shoudl be stopped. Piercetp 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pierce! Absolutely yes I agree with you. Another common activity done at RA schools that can easily lead to academic fraud is honorary doctorate titles. I'm not talking so much about the ones where they give a major celebrity/politician an honorary doctorate to give a graduation speech. The ones that are more often abused are the ones given for large financial contributions. Have fun, Bill Huffman 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I loved your ACT score of 10 story. I hope he was an extra good football player. :-)

BTW, I've been anxiously awaiting your proposed wording for the "shown" and what was shown/implied. Perhaps something based on the wording prior to the anon change? Regards, Bill Huffman 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer using "implied" but as long as the word "diploma mill" does not appear in the sentence than I am ok with it as it is. I decided to give the article a break and let someone else have a go at it. Taylor W seems to be keeping an eye on the article. As long as there are no overt acts of vandalism I am content to keep things as they are.


 * Shalom Piercetp 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, because I too think that it is better now. Take care, Bill Huffman 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Guys, I'm satisfied with the article and the weasle word "Implied" can be removed as long as the other one, "Diploma mill," is also excluded. The article looks balanced. Happy Hollidays.


 * Taylor W. 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we all like it better for the same reason. The term diploma mill is poorly defined and can mean a very wide range of things to different people. It is better to use more accurate language. Regards, Bill Huffman

Arbitration request on Derek Smart.
Check out WP:RFAR for the arbitration request on the article. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart and libel claims
The diffs I have put in there re: the libel claims are to support the claims made in Swatjester's initial statement. Indeed, I too feel that this is one piece of evidence which points to the man himself doing the editing. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current reading may not be clear what it is you are actually asserting by the evidence. Bill Huffman 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm not sure how much information I'll be able to compile and with the 1000-word/100-diff recommended limit, I'm trying to be as concise as possible. I see your point, though. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a wiki tool to count words? Thanks, Bill Huffman 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of. What I'll end up doing is just copy my section into TextPad or Microsoft Word and do the word count there. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for tip, I was not aware of the MS Word feature. Bill Huffman 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Supreme Cmdr" evidence
Regarding the point about "Supreme Cmdr" and it being what he uses in his own house, you may wish to link directly to a thread on the 3000AD BBS; this may save the arbitrators a bit of time when sifting through evidence. At random, I picked this one. You could link directly to his user profile, but this requires registration to view. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you, Bill Huffman 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing ... on your last addition to evidence, it's always better to put in a diff. In the piece about "Newyorkbrad", you probably should use this, instead of the link to that section. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most excellent! thank you very much, Bill Huffman 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Should it be mentioned that Supreme_Cmdr continues to ignore his ban editing Derek Smart related pages or will that be obvious? (I already used up by 1000 words so won't mention it.)
 * If you like, bring it up over at WP:ANI. That is where the ban was proposed, discussed and finally decided, but the conversation has been archived. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. You may get a quicker response by bringing it up on InShaneee's or Glen S's talk pages. InShaneee informed him about his ban and Glen S (previously uninvolved) blocked him later for violating it. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was only concerned that ArbCom be made aware of the lack of respect. I think that Steel359 covered it in his contribution. Thanks, Bill Huffman 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dsmart@pobox.com
I don't think it'd be kosher to add this myself but if space permits in the "Derek Smart (Game Developer) same person as Derek Smart (Usenet Poster/Flamer)" of your section of the Arb case evidence page, you might want to link to this article that appears to link Smart directly to the Dsmart@pobox.com e-mail address.

Best of luck on the Arbitration. I'm watching with interest. --ElKevbo 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am watching with interest. Thank you, Bill Huffman 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom
Bill, I would advise against the jabs against SC/Smart on the Arbcom page. It can accomplish nothing except verify SC's claims that there a bunch of spiteful people out there to get him. Please, for the sake of the decision, keep your comments on the up and up. --Beaker342 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you Bill Huffman 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SC a "she"?
I've noticed that BBlackmoor repeatedly refers to Supreme_Cmdr as female. Does he know something that everyone else doesn't, or is it just clever subterfuge to draw people away from the "SC = Derek Smart" theory? Either way, I thought it was a little odd. SC's response to my question regarding the use of Usenet posts to character assassinate someone while trying to prevent their use in Wiki-articles was perplexing, as he (she?) did not seem to understand the hypocritical nature of such behavior. In particular, the phrase that those who hate him "can't deal with the fact that the man is a pure genius..." struck me as if SC, if not Smart, is a tad obsessed. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this development. Cardinal2 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded via email. thanks, Bill Huffman 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I could hazard a guess, I think the use of the female pronoun may just be a habit of the author. BBlackmoor describes himself as an active RP Gamer, and it is fairly common for sourcebooks for paper and pen RPGs to use the female personal pronoun instead of the male.  I think it's more likely to be a case of BBlackmoor's personal preference than his knowing Cmdr in person.  Of course, I could be wrong. Mael-Num 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice
And excellent disclaimer on the Derek Smart ArbCom workshop page. I actually lol'd. =) Mael-Num 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

John Bear article
Mr. Huffman,

It is my opinion that you should show more concern towards the John Bear article by providing more information on the 'unaccredited distance-learning institutions' with which Mr. Bear has been associated, instead of accusing me of mean-spiritedness. As far as I am concerned, I have raised a valid point. If a major critic of unaccredited distance-learning institutions has been associated with them, it is quite possible that he or she is operating out of the same mean-spiritedness you seem so eager to accuse me of, or has some special axe to grind. Regardless of whether this happens to be the case, Wikipedia should make certain that a detailed explanation is offered in the article, instead of telling me which of Mr. Bear's books I can buy in order to find out, or in trusting the media and the F.B.I. to supply an objective account. If Mr. Bear is adhering to a double standard, he should be exposed. If there is a valid explanation for his association with those institutions, it should be stated in the article; otherwise, it invites questions concerning the integrity of the Bear article in particular, and Wikipedia articles in general.

I am thinking of pursuing an on-line degree, and have been attempting to obtain valid feedback concerning reputable institutions. Some acquaintances of mine have gone the on-line route, and have had mixed reactions from perspective employers, regardless of accreditation. If Mr. Bear's opinions are to be trusted, I would like to know so that I may benefit from them. If, on the other hand, he is just another snake-oil salesman with an avid following, I also have a right to know. Simply because you and user Thue happen to disagree with my approach, does not mean that I committed vandalism on the article, unless both of you have strong emotional opinions on the topic, and are unable to exhibit neutral points of view.

Thank you, Mklf


 * Hi Mklf, if you're interested in getting more information on distance learning options, I suggest that you the visit discussion forums on http://www.degreeinfo.com and/or http://www.degreediscussions.com.


 * Regarding Dr. Bear, he is a leading expert on distance learning as well as diploma mills. He has written the most useful books on the subject and he has testified in numerous trials as an expert witness. He is frequently sought after by journalists as a distance learning expert. He was a consultant to the FBI for their DipScam initiative. If you want accurate information then Dr. Bear is a good source. He is actually a strong supporter of valid unaccredited programs, at least for the right people in the right situations. Much more so than I am, for example. You may believe him or not. I really don't care.


 * I wish you luck. Perhaps we'll converse again on one of the above discussion forums. Bill Huffman 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you're interested, I'd be happy to discuss particulars about the John Bear article itself. If you're interested then please place those comments, questions, suggestions, or concerns in the proper context which would be talk:John_Bear. Thanks, Bill Huffman 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart
An arbitration case in which you were involved, 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 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 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Derek Smart
I've removed the host info from your comment since I don't think it is needed (and administrators can tracert anyway). Also, I left a message at User talk:209.214.20.239; please take a look and tell me what you think. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That says it exactly. Sorry if I didn't do it properly. Thank you very much for fixing it. Bill Huffman 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, you had the right idea, but a messsge at the person's talk page is much more effective (since they'll be alerted to it) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

John Bear quote
Hi Bill, I posted a thread about your addition on Talk:Plagiarism and didn't know if you checked there much. Thanks. Flowanda 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flowanda, I didn't see the thread that you referred to on Talk:Plagiarism, although I did respond to the query you'd made on Talk:Diploma_mill. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'm not a blond, but I edit like one. Flowanda 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Distance Education
Bill, I need to ask you something.

I am considering pursuing a Masters in Engineering. Are there any good schools you could recommend. If you want to email me you can at piercetp3840@sbcglobal.net.

Thanks

Piercetp 02:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded via email. Let me know here if you didn't receive it. Regards, Bill

Robert de Sorbon
You edited, I think not correctly. You mention de Sorbon as "unnacredited. It is a French Institution. In France "accreditation" does not exist since 2000 at it was called "homologation", as you know. It is exactly and legally "A French Private institution of higher Education" Period. It is the legal term. Two years ago your friend Mr Contreras from Oregon tried to destroy this institution. Robert de Sorbon is French, legal, thriving, going well and reflects the new trend in education and reflecting well the modernism that President Sarkozy is injecting in this historical country.. From Gerovital hoping that I used the correct procedure and did not offend you . 19:42, 18 July 2007 Gerovital1 (signiture added by Bill Huffman)

Hi Gerovital1, First, please sign all of your entries on all Wikipedia talk/discussion pages by entering four tildes ( ~ ). Second, thank you for your concern regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. Third, Wikipedia has rules, policies, and guidelines regarding the editting of articles. Orlady was correct in reverting your changes. Your changes were not supported by Wikipedia defined reliable sources. Even worse, you deleted material from the article that was supported by a reliable source. The Oregon ODA is a reliable source and if they are making a false statement then you need to deal with them not Wikipedia. Of course, if you can provide a reliable source that contradicts the ODA statement that you disagree with then that is a totally different issue. If that is the case then the proper procedure would be to discuss it on the talk page for the article that needs to be changed. Fourth, thanks again and have a great day. Bill Huffman 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PWU
Hi Bill, it's been a while since the Derek Smart arbitration when we last spoke. Anyway, as you can see I've opened up the Pacific Western University article on directions from the office. In spite of that though, I'd appreciate if you refrained from editing that particular article. Given the special sensitivity of that particular article, and your preference for editing articles on diploma mills and the like, I feel that you might not have objectivity or that a potential conflict of interest exists. Specifically, the foundation has received several complaints regarding this article, one of which cited edits you had made. As a temporary measure, I've also undone one of your edits to the article, as it was a particularly contentious piece of the dispute and was quite acceptable the way it is.

The article's non-protected status is, at the moment, a temporary, essentially probationary status. If it gets particularly nasty, I'll simply have to lock it down, so I do feel the best way for this article to improve is for you to refrain from editing the article, or if you do please discuss your edits and gain approval first on the talk page. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SwatJester, the change was a simple factual correction. The CHEA is NOT an accreditation agency. I will of course, respect your request to not edit the PWU article. Please respect my simple request to make the article factual. CHEA has never accredited anything. The way it currently reads is nonsense and ridiculous. How about this instead? (I have bolded my suggested additions.)

"PWU California is not accredited by any accreditation agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education (which is the agency that recognizes the accepted accreditation agencies in the US). As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions. In some jurisdictions (such as Texas) the use of degree titles from the university may be restricted or illegal"

BTW SwatJester, I really appreciate your dedication and effort nursing this article along. I'm sorry that my zeal for factual accuracy has caused you a problem. Sincerely, Bill Huffman 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll drop it in there and see what happens. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed a broken link to the article on CHEA. I hope that was okay? Sincerely, Bill Huffman 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course. Like I said above, it is a request, not a demand. Obvious simple things like that are no problem. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: my comments @ Derek:Talk
Hi Bill, I've responded there on that talk page (lol) as to why I characterized your edits as Derek-related, just wanted to put a note here to make sure you see it. To explain better: I'm particularly proud of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eaglizard, and the diversity and wide range of subjects therein. I guess, essentially, I compared your edit history to mine, and yours seemed, shall we say, rather more focused... lol (Derek and Diploma Mills and little else. BTW, I'm not questioning your choice of subjects, here, just the number of them. I wish there were more :)

I also added another comment further below, of a more personal nature, which I'd really like to reiterate here. Bill, I like the way you do wikipedia, and what I'd like most is to see you doing much more of it. Ofc, if it doesn't interest you to do so, that's ok, too, but I think you're capable of making lots of great contributions and I just want to encourage you to do so. :D

Thanks for helping out. Eaglizard 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eaglizard, thank you for the kind words. I do enjoy editting Wikipedia but my time here is rather limited so I like to focus on the area that's a personal hobby and I have expertise in which is diploma mills. Maybe someday when I have more time I might be able to contribute more here. Take care and thank you for helping out in a wide range of subjects. I feel that your pride is well placed and I sincerely appreciate your contributions! Regards, Bill Huffman 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill
Hiya. You don't really know me, but I'd just like to say that I've enjoyed reading your posts on the Derek Smart page over time, and your Warewolves (sp?) page has been a source of much fun! I've given up on Wikipedia as anything but a source of empirical data for human behaviour under certain conditions, so you won't see me there again. Nonetheless, you seem like a smart (no pun) and interesting person it would have been enjoyable conversing further with. Regards, Mikademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the Derek Smart talk page has been deleted again by a different editor this time. I think some editors can get touchy about Wikipedia criticisms. I don't edit the Derek Smart article for obvious reasons but I agree with your opinion that the article could be improved by adding some more information in some areas. Perhaps you would be interested in improving the article? If you would rather continue this discussion or another, you can send me an email and we can chat via email? Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you here again, Bill. My wife was making some jokes on our tenth anniversary to her friends about the time i had spent in flamewars in the mid 90's - and she wiki'd up old derek smart. And guess what? I saw your name there - made me laugh. I've gotten some jollies again reading about Derek's/SC's/Warhawk's antics (a dead giveaway they are all the same person, to the uninitiated (of course anyone from the flamewar days can recognize dereks writing style immediately) is his english spelling of the word 'colour' - iirc, his mom was british; another, is his quote '...whether from a cereal box..." regarding his PHD - same quote he has made several times. Anyway, I've no idea how to find email addresses here, or I would send you one, so this will have to do. Take care. Jackyo123 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)jackyo


 * Hi Jackyo, if you go to the person's talk page then look in the left column. There's a set of links called toolbox. Within toolbox there's a link called "E-mail this user", assuming that the user has said that it is okay to email them. I do allow that. However, my email is the same, bhuffma1@san.rr.com. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jackyo123 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)ahh ok good to know. Saw more humurous Derek postings on Gamasutra - he stepped into a firefight over there, and is taking the ex-pres of Alganon to task for 'not delivering a completed game on time'. Makes me chuckle.


 * Send me an email. Afterall Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss Wikipedia. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Bill Huffman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
I've asked for an independent review of your Derek Smart editing at the BLP Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request
I have requested arbitration remedy for your account. Please give your side there. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request outcome
A partial outcome on this discussion is that I will no longer edit talk:Derek Smart. Since that is the only area left that I edited, I've placed the retire template at the top of this page. This was done to assure everyone of my intent. I will continue to participate in the arbitration committee discussion while it is ongoing. So there will be that slight delay in completely closing down my participation in Wikipedia matters. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding Questions
Cla68, I know that you've been on a semi-wikibreak but, you've posted to Wikipedia almost everyday since then. Your request for an amendement to an old ArbCom case has had outstanding questions for you to answer for about four days now. I assume that the case has not been closed because the committee is interested in your answers to these questions. Please attend to this as soon as you can. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The committee members haven't, as far as I'm aware, commented on the diploma mill editing by your two accounts, so it doesn't seem to me that they're awaiting any further discussion from either of us. I'll answer your questions here, however, as I understand them.  I have not communicated with Derek Smart in any form or capacity, ever.  I surmised the name of the university that was involved in the dispute between you and Smart because one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials.  When I searched in Wikipedia under those initials, the university/diploma mill that both your accounts had edited came up. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Derek Smart has never claimed a degree from WNU, as far as I know. Here's a google search of "WNU" on http://follies.werewolves.org. The initials do not exist on the Flame War Follies website. It appears that you are not being honest, Cla68. Please give a full accounting of why you are saying such things. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry "Bill", but I'm not going to get into this with you. The Committee doesn't appear to be willing to tackle the diploma mill issue so I'm letting it drop.  In conclusion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as part of your personal feud with someone.  You're fortunate (arguably) that you were't banned for using an unauthorized sock account and for being evasive when asked to come clean about it.  So, stay away from the Derek Smart article and don't do anything further on Wikipedia which appears to be aimed at carrying on your personal battle with the guy. Cla68 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

retired
I've retired from editing Wikipedia article space and article talk pages. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

limited involvement
Bill, in answer to your message, I'd have to say that my involvement with the user in question was too limited to be very telling. But if you take formal action that would involve mentioning my run-in, please notify me. My one point would be that I was accused of being bullying and insulting, but one of the three derogatory things pointed to in example was my characterization of something I said myself. This raised the question of how carefully remarks are being read in context, and what danger to freedom of discourse is posed by threats to shut down editors because of their "civility." I take my contributions to WP seriously, as I do intellectual integrity, and the remarks left on my talk page by the individual in question did indeed have a chilling effect: I recently made myself quite unclear in a content dispute between two editors, because I was reluctant to speak frankly. So I'm interested in the larger issues here, but less so in the individual, whose work I otherwise don't know. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68
Bill, your participation on the arbcom case is not helping. Based on your past experience with Cla68, it has the appearance of a petty grudge match, with Harassment as your goal. Please take a step back and think about this. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. My experience does indicate to me that Cla68 sometimes does real harm to Wikipedia. For example, he has bullied other editors beside me. One of them hasn't edited Wikipedia for weeks, after their last encounter with Cla68. I haven't edited article space or article talk space in months because Cla68 will likely just start up his Harassment again. For example, I got some libel removed from a BLP article by asking some help from other editors and Cla68 tried to get me banned by telling SirFozzie nonsense regarding the incident. He seems to make great contributions to military history articles but he has a side that is worrisome. If you think that my participation is not helping though, I will reconsider. Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful for you to share your personal experience with specific information, but coming to the arbcom case and commenting without describing this past history makes it seem like you are out to get him. Plus, you came out of retirement to comment.  Did you declare your past history with Cla68 in the arbcom case? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no secret of it. For example last July on the Workshop page I made these edits. I can't understand why Cla68 would tell arbcom a brazen total lie about me in order to try to get them to ban me. It makes no sense, yet it is true. And this all just came out of the blue. I mean there had previously been zero interaction between us before his harassment began. There is something not quite right with Cla68. Because I no longer edit article space there are now substandard schools (or diploma mills) that are using Wikipedia as free advertising, e.g., Preston_University, Pakistan. That is real harm to Wikipedia, in my view. Bill Huffman (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Lar had to prompt you to even talk about it. You need to just post a statement about your own personal investment in the issue, explaining your past history very briefly. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I most defintiely do NOT want to even appear to be trying to be deceitful! I see two options. If I post anything at all regarding Cla68 I could always add a paranthetical disclaimer, that points to this conversation, for example. Or I could just never post a comment involving Cla68 in those proceedings again. Which one do you feel would be better? Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to be so hard on yourself. Look around you and review the research.  Deceit is rewarded, celebrated, and valued as much as or more than honesty in human society.  There's a lot of research on this topic.  Same could be said for violence and anger, greed and jealousy.  Many people consider these important human values and base entire policies and nations on them. Ask yourself, what does it mean to be human?  Then, act on it.  The world is what we choose to make it, and this begins in the mind.  How do you think about the world and others?  You can make a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven.  At the end of the day, Cla68, or other people for that matter, have little to do with it. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get that philosophical or even trying to be hard on myself. Which option (or a third?) do you think would likely be most helpful for me to follow in this arbcom case? Of course this is just your opinion, which I may or may not decide to follow. :-) Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and it makes sense, but I maintain that unless we become philosophical about our underlying assumptions about reality, we will keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The true philosophy is a trialogue, between our innermost thoughts, our experience with the outside world and others, and the reality that exists outside of our heads.  Too often, people make decisions based only on their thoughts, rather than all three things.  To answer your question, I would choose a third option, one that involves reaching out to Cla68 to end the conflict.  Contact him on his talk page and discuss the problem as you see it with him directly, but do so speaking only from your experience, without passing judgment on him. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my perception :-) is that I've tried that. Cla68 is apparently not willing to discuss anything with me. My theory is that he doesn't want to consider me a reasonable human being and any direct discussion with me might burst that bubble he has. It seems similar to me to the way that he treated those other people that he seemed to bully. Returning to what might be closer to the original subject, the reason I became interested in the arbcom case is that it seems clear to me that the skeptic side is mostly in the wrong here. Primarily because they don't seem able to assume good faith in their fellow editors. Of course, wanting to push a scientificly fringe position is not a healthy approach to Wikipedia editing but my theory is that this too can partially be based in the same lack of good faith. I think that they push that fringe position in part because they want to "level the playing field", to use a Lar term. Which has at it's core, I think, a lack of good faith. It also seems that WMC is a most excellent editor in the area but I wish that he would play nicer so that the so-called sceptic crowd wouldn't have any "ammunition" to try to use against him. Recent developments seem to indicate to me that arbcom may be coming to similar conclusions to mine so, bowing out and not commenting further has become a very reasonable option from my point of view. This is the direction I'm leaning at this point. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement I made on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision copied here for convenience
I think that it might be interesting to some of the arbcom if I pointed out some of Cla68 apparent battlefield conduct outside the CC area. Perhaps helping to establish a pattern of behavior on Cla68's part that would make a contentious area like CC only worse. Cla68 has made threats and scolded other editors. I can see the possibility that some might consider these three incidents as Cla68 making rather pointy but still good faith efforts to improve other editors behavior. What Cla68 did against me though I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as good faith. Here Cla68 tells a brazen total lie to Arbcom giving false testimony that I claimed that a particular person claimed a degree from Warren National University. He told this falsehood in an attempt to get Arbcom to ban my editing on the Warren National University article. I proved here with google searches on my website that Cla68's unsupported assertion was a brazen falsehood. I also linked to archive.org links to my website from the past and invited Cla68 to point out where he read the claims that I had supposedly made. Cla68 has never been able to give a good faith explanation for his totally false assertion. copied here for convenience Bill Huffman (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above issues (except that they both refer to apparent disruptive behavior by Cla68), ArbCom found that Cla68 engaged in disruptive battlefield conduct on pages related to Climate Change. ArbCom has indefinitely banned Cla68 from editing articles or article talk pages related to Climate Change, broadly interpreted. Bill Huffman (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More potential leads showing a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde editing pattern
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=407748252&oldid=407637033

Bill Huffman (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&direction=next&oldid=429330585#I.27m_back This is an especially interesting piece of information from Iron Duke regarding Cla68. I was wondering how and why the Mr. Hyde personality would come out of Cla68. Cla68 and I had had zero interaction before his attacks started on me. I was wondering why he would target me. I thought that it might have something to do with Wikipedia Review because someone else had pointed me at Wikipedia Review when I asked them about Cla68. I couldn't find anything there in my case though. Bill Huffman (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting statement from 2007. An admin that apparently blocked Cla68 made a comment about Cla68 that is the same as what I've stated here. He said, "As someone who knows you only from your contributions, it seems almost like reading two different people looking on, say, the military history side in comparison to this." Cla68 was an excellent editor back in 2007 and he is still a most excellent editor in 2011. However, he sometimes seems to behave like a completely different person. This was apparently the case back in 2007 and is still the case today, IMHO. Bill Huffman (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)