Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop

Regarding the use of sources
Regarding the use of sources, I'm a bit concerned that insufficient guidance might come out of the case, or that the waters might end up being even murkier than they were. Admins who find themselves from time to time trying to mediate content disputes and to act as a voice of reason could do with a bit more certainty about the application of Wikipedia policy in this area. Maybe it means that people like me have to involve ourselves more in relevant policy pages, but my own sense of things was that attempts to construct an interpretation from primary sources would be original research. For example, it is acceptable to use movie X as a source for the fact that the hero of movie X dies in the end (if that is an uncontroversial fact and not something that is reasonably open to interpretation and debate). However, it is not acceptable to use movie X, movie Y, and movie Z as primary sources for the claim (whether stated implicitly in some way or merely insinuated) that director A (who directed them all) is obsessed with death, based on the fact that lots of people die in all these movies. If we want to offer that interpretation, we have to find a body of film criticism in which the claim is made, and we must attribute it to the critics concerned.

It seems to me that the above kind of distinction is not very difficult to understand, or for good-faith contributors to apply. In this case, it would severely limit, if not entirely curtail, the use that could be made of Smart's Usenet's posts as sources. To make any generalisation about their content, it would be necessary to find (and properly attribute) a sufficiently weighty and reliable secondary source.

Metamagician3000 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sources. I find this source, an article in Computer Gaming World quite acceptable. I don't know if everyone else would agree. Blow by blow accounts from Usenet are inappropriate though. Fred Bauder 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion removed, as it was not discussion or analysis of the workshop proposals and was not likely to contribute to a productive resolution to this case. Thatcher131 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that maybe the first part of the discussion might apply to Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Workshop which I believe corresponds to Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Proposed_decision but I can't quibble with your assessment about the liklihood of it contributing to the resolution. Thank you, Bill Huffman 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all counts. Would there be general consensus, however, that the Usenet posts might be referenced as one source to merely document the existence and general character of "The Great Flame War?"  (I'm thinking of one or two brief sentences - that's all.) I agree that trying to wring detailed information out of the Usenet posts would be folly.  But I do believe that simply using them to cite their own existence is rather trivial.  There's definitely a fine line we must not cross but I'm sure that good editors can manage to stay on the right side of that line.
 * I am also not in agreement that disallowing any mention of the Usenet posts themselves would kill the article as there are other references that are sufficient to acknowledge the existence and general character of these incidents. That, of course, is not a good reason to disallow the use of the Usenet posts but I do not fear for the article's existence without them.  --ElKevbo 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on all counts above. Newsgroup posts should be allowed as a primary source on the grounds to document that the Great Flame War existed, but should not be allowed as a primary source to claim that Smart is an addicted newsgroup flamer (which doesn't even matter because there is plenty of other material about his contentiousness). Therefore, we can have a sentence or three saying "there was a big flame war on usenet, smart was one of the participants. Blah blah blah a little more exposition, blah blah blah. It's been commented on by various industry sources and has become somethng of a meme." and cite the newsgroups as well as the commentary from gamespy et al, but it prevents and BLP claims of defamation because it does not allow editors to say "Smart is this...." &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly people, I'm the sort of person who is more likely to know something about Ninian Smart than Derek Smart, and I'm not familiar with the Usenet posts you're all talking about. But from what has been said of them over time, I'd say any use should be very limited, and it may not be necessary or appropriate to use them at all. Rather than stray into the grey areas of original research, I'd rather you say, "Smart is notorious within the gaming community for his contentious role in a lengthy and intense flamewar on Usenet", and then cite an appropriate secondary source for that claim. You can add, "This has become something of an internet meme" adding another secondary source "and has been commented on by Foo magazine and Snark magazine" (with appropriate citations). The whole thing can be very brief - just a few sentences - as both of you suggest, to avoid undue weight, and it should not be given undue weight when it is referred to in the lead. All that said, I'm not trying to rule on this or something. Perhaps the community as a whole needs to look at it. I'm just adding my two cents' worth for whatever value it has, having been briefly involved as a neutral party a few months ago. Metamagician3000 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And there is the real issue, IMHO: undue weight. I think it is valid to say that Smart is notable primarily because of his interactions with fans and critics on Usenet and message boards.  However, despite its length and volume, it's not the kind of thing that is widely documented in traditional (i.e. reliable and verifiable) media sources.  Hence the dilemma unsuccessfully resolved by some editors: how to mention this prominent phenomenon with due weight despite the relative lack of sources.  Of course, we all know that the Wikipedia Way is to only write what we can reference.  But I hope that you can appreciate how this has presented some well-meaning editors with a perceived dilemma.  I also understand (but do not sympathize) with editors who are ardent supporters of Smart (or Smart himself) who want to water down or completely eliminate all mentions of these events that portray Smart in a negative light.
 * I think the answer is pretty clear as (so far) we've all agreed on the general solution (to this particular issue; other issues still remain in this case). I'm just trying to explain the situation to help you see it through others' eyes.  --ElKevbo 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nod nod, okay. I don't know about the other issues. This was the only one that I was sort of (briefly) involved in. But I wonder what Supreme Commander and the other pro-Smart editors think about what we're discussing here. Surely they can't deny the notoriety we are talking about, as long as it is described concisely. I think they'd have a point if they distinguished, as I do on the project page, between notability and notoriety, but they can't deny that he is notorious in some (evidently quite wide) circles for the reasons we've described and that there are uncontroversially reliable sources in support of this claim. If we could all reach agreement on all of that, you'd think it would take out some of the heat ... At this stage, I'd rather believe that everyone can be reasonable about it and that our honoured and highly-qualified arbitrators won't necessarily have to shoot someone. I've often been disappointed in the past, of course, but I'd love to see the pro-Smart editors say something reasonable in response to all this, knowing that the arbitrators can see their reaction. Metamagician3000 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Smart is actually very simple to predict. Truth/falsehood and right/wrong are defined by his own subjective point of view. For example, look at this exchange on the very subject that you're wondering about. One of Mr. Smart's apparent anon accounts insults me for saying the same thing that he ends up saying himself. That is that Mr. Smart is well known for his abrasive behavior. The difference had to do with point of view. That point of view simply being that almost anything that I say is wrong, anything that Mr. Smart says is correct. This was a very common occurrence in the flame war (not just with me but anyone that Mr. Smart felt was in the anti-Derek camp). I believe that Mr. Smart is psychologically incapable of empathy or objective thinking. One of the things that facinated me about the flame war was figuring this out. I read some books on certain personality formations and believe that I finally do understand it. Regards, Bill Huffman 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Metamgician's suggestion is eminently reasonable. It's a pity everyone is not so reasonable. This tempest in a teapot is sad and absurd, and the vast majority of comments on this talk page and on the Derek Smart talk page are irrelevant, at best. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-11 16:31Z

I think all of this also underlines the issue of what constitutes undue weight: does a public figure where 99% of the news about him is negative have a right to claim undue weight when the same proportion is mentioned in wikipedia? Lets arbitrarily state that Smart is 80% criticism, 20% praise (in articles about him). Wouldn't it be undue weight then, to not have anything OTHER than 80% criticism, 20% praise in the article? By that standard, keeping it 50-50 would be undue weight to the praise. I think that is something the pro-Smart editors fail to see, yet they also have a decent point in saying that certain things against Smart, while critical are just not necessary for the article. It's a toughie, to be sure, that's why I filed the RfAr &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see you post proof of your claim that 99% of the news about Derek Smart is negative. This is yet another blanket statement that you folks make and with no basis in reality nor which pass any form of the WP:RS muster. If what you claim were true, well then, why should a source such as Usenet which fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL be the only place where you can find such posts? Where are the WP:RS articles? Surely if 99% news about Derek Smart were negative, you wouldn't need the Usenet to find them would you? Nope, you wouldn't. Further, it is already clear that the Usenet posts were about The Great Flame War. Since when are people at their best in any flame war? So, even if there was negativity toward him and his supporters on Usenet as a result of The Great Flame War, how does that have anything to do with a WP:BLP article about a [supposed] public figure? Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no proper news articles which focus primarily on the negative aspects of Derek Smart because he's not notable or important enough for games media outlets to spend the time to generate the content on websites that may pass WP:RS regarding his negative nature. Every article which mentions negative things about Smart does so in passing or as part of the introduction. Most every article referenced in the derek smart wikipedia article mentions the controversy in the introduction and then goes on to the real reason for the article; the game review.


 * That is so funny, that I'm actually glad that you posted that, since it quite clearly shows the nature of what you folks are trying to pov push into the Wiki. OK, so he's not important enough (that is as laughable as saying that Bill Clinton is a has been) for the material to be generated. So, the Usenet posts - by individuals - is notable enough because why? As I have said before, none of you editors know anything about the gaming industry, nor Derek Smart's infamy, involvement or industry credibility. All you guys care about is that you and a few people don't like him, so you all jump on the bandwagon to taint his reputation without a single shred of WP:RS evidence to back it up. Which is exactly why WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL exist. Without them, all you folks would be doing on Wiki is exactly what you were doing on Usenet, in forums and elsewhere where it is OK to tear someone done with zero merit whatsoever, while commiting libel at every turn.


 * I also want to point out that will all the resources available to you folks, so far, even with the 99% claims and such, nobody has demonstrated any such evidence that every article written about him is negative. Not one. Go ahead, post them and lets debate them. If you're going to make claims, you might as well post material to back it up. Thats what Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Smart's involvement in the flame war is important to the article because it is the primary source of his notability. The inability to cite that information may, in fact, reduce the notability of the subject. UseNET is the only impartial source of citation regarding this significant portion of the subject because the only cited information will be writings by Derek Smart himself. If we can't include information about Smart's controversial nature, the article should probably be nominated for deletion.--Jeff 05:12, 8 January 2007

(UTC)


 * Yet another example of what I'm saying. Smart was on the scene and a notable game developer BEFORE the flame wars even started. In fact - and I don't expect you to know this - the flame wars started because of his first game as he was very protective of it and foolishly engaged those who attacked his game. Once others took it personal, it just added fuel to an already raging fire. So, you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about. If you did, you would know this. Even Huffman knows this, since he was the #1 instigator of the flame war and single handedly essentially helped kill any/all game discussions on Usenet. A visit to Google proves this quite clearly with lots of gems about his obsessive exploits and online stalking of Smart. So, go do your homework instead of just jumping on the colletive schoolyard mentality and posting stuff with no basis in facts or reality. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have two questions about this statement. First, it is obvious that you do not want to use Usenet posts as citations to Smart's behavior on his Wikipedia article. Then why do you repeatedly use them here to cite the behavior of others? You can't have it both ways. I know that talk pages are different than articles, but don't you think your argument would hold more water if you stopped using Usenet posts yourself? Cardinal2 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First. The Wiki is about Derek Smart, not others. The postings and behavior of others is not the subject of this ArbCom. I use Usenet cites in order to illustrate how these folks did the same darn thing on Usenet. I also use the Usenet to illustrate that Usenet being a free-for-all forum, is not subject to WP:RS (or any Wiki policy of guideline for that matter) and simply cannot be used to point the finger at Derek Smart. This is not what the Wiki is about and I'm sure that you already know that. Finally, the fact that they can only find cites on Usenet about whatever it is they are trying to point out is proof enough that not only is it pointless and without merit, but it is akin to claiming that you saw your neighbor walking around naked in his backyard. The news team didn't come out to see it and could care less. Smart's Usenet behaviour or even his behaviour in person bears no relevance to the Wiki. Lots of industry people, especially the media, have first hand experience with Smart and have clearly posted in most places that his online persona is nothing like his Usenet persona. Btw, QT3 is one of the forums where Smart used to frequent. Until Huffman showed up, started his usual online stalking and harrassment of Smart. Smart then retaliated in Spades and got banned shortly after Huffman was banned. This seems to be the general theme and was also echoed in an article written by a well known and popular publication. Look at the date of that article. Do you think for one minute that if Smart were as these people are trying to make him look, that at least ONE publication wouldn't have written about it by now? Did you see any such material in that article? Which I have to point out was done long after the flame wars and Smart's notoriety was already public.


 * Fact is, Smart is one of the most spoken and written about developers in the history of gaming industry. A trip to Google or any news site is enough to prove that statement. In an industry where indie game developers are either long gone, in the process of folding or forgotten about, he is still around doing his games and playing by his rules. A lot of people admire him for that. And those who hated him from the start and who can't deal with the fact that the man is a pure genius albeit an eccentric one, can't deal with the fact that their favorite whipping boy is still around. Don't you think that all these publishers (retail and online) who sign deals with him, are aware of who he is? Yet, where has Smart ever had a problem getting his games published? Heck, last I heard on his forums, his recently announced game Galactic Command has already been picked up and there is an announcement forthcoming at the upcoming D.I.C.E. summit. So to think that a bunch of people writing up fabricated nonsense on the net is enough to inject pov-pushing entries into his Wiki is foolish. When people don't like someone, they will do their best to tear that person down. Thats how society works. And the net gives people a forum to do that. Which is why libel suits are now so easily fought and won because the authorities having finally taken notice of just how dangerous it is to just post anything you want online and without fear of repercussions. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondly, you say that Smart was a notable game developer before the flame wars began, yet on the next line you state that the flame wars began when his first game was released. How could one become a "notable game developer" before releasing a game? Is there an award or distinction in the gaming community that he received beforehand? If so, perhaps you should list it here, or include it inside the article after an admin releases it from protection. Cardinal2 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Smart burst on the scenes as way back as the early nineties I believe. In 1992 Computer Games & Strategy Plus magazine (later named Computer Games Magazine) a leading gaming mag at the time, caught wind of his game and put it on the cover of the magazine. From that point on he won widespread recognition and it went on from there. That first game was released in late 1996 by Take Two. The flame war, sparked by Huffman and co, erupted in early 1997 on AOL shortly after the game was released. It boiled over to Compuserve. Since both of those services don't allow such behavior, it eventually moved to the lawless frontier that is Usenet. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be appropriate to immediately jump from "you can't use this source" to "delete the whole article." If ArbCom were to rule that UseNet sources can not be used at all then we'd take it from there and see how the article would shape up.  I understand that this is purely speculation but I don't care for that line of speculation in this particular place where a binding decision along those lines could be made as I think it would be a very poor decision.  --ElKevbo 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There already is such a policy. Wp:rs. Thatcher131 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come on now, you seriously think they didn't know that? They do. They're just trying to ignore policy and do what the heck they like. Why? Because they can. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From the page in question: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (emphasis added)" --ElKevbo 15:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Now take that guideline and apply it to the strict WP:BLP and it should be immediately obvious (or maybe not) why you can't use it. This argument has already been made and discarded by other editors and you know this to be true. No matter how many ways you phrase it, the end result will always remain the same. You can't do it. Period. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As Jeff mentioned on talk:Derek_Smart, the policy/guideline also explicitly mentions cases where self-published material (e.g., Usenet posts) may be used as a reliable source. The policy/guideline says as long as four criteria are met and lists the critiria which was discussed and consensus reached on talk:Derek_Smart that Derek's posts in the flame war meet those four criteria. P.S. Supreme_Cmdr, thanks for showing up, you didn't disappoint. :-) Bill Huffman 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then go and prove that Smart in fact wrote those posts and be sure to verify them. Saying that oh thats Smart's email address, so it must be him that posted that, is not acceptable because in this day of forgery, spoofing etc, there is no way to prove that. In fact, now that I think about it, several people on Usenet and on forums have posted as if they were Smart and later was unveiled as imposters. Don't take my word for it, Google is your friend. Go bond. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to express a desire for explanation about Supreme_Cmdr's claim that Derek Smart was notable as a game developer before he made a game. I'm popping in here rather new to wikipedia, but it should be said that I have heard a decent amount of information about Derek Smart, yet have not played any of his games.  Taking me as a litmus, it would seem quite reasonable that, were we unable to use Bill Huffman's site about Derek Smart, we should delete the page entirely.  However, Derek Smart is still a game developer.  Even if he is known by many to have a reputation for less than honorable actions, the fact that his controversy is mentioned in other sources I feel could be enough for the sake of an encyclopedic article.  In fact, the 'Why I love Derek Smart' on the current page about him speaks much about his controversy, even stating directly that (usually) if he does not invite the controversy that surrounds him, he creates it.  I don't know wikipedia well enough to know if the project can be sued, as Supreme_Cmdr mentioned, for introducing Bill Huffman's site.  However it is conceivable that in the face of verification that there is online controversy about him, mentioning that there have been sites built about this controversy (without mentioning what they are exactly) seems to be be a safe thing to do both for legality and for encyclopedic integrity.  It has been said in Supreme_Cmdr's statements in the request for arbitration that no one cares if Derek Smart pets cats or kicks dogs, etc.  I would refute such a statement by saying that if you have to spend enough time petting cats, if you kick enough dogs, you can become a notable cat-rubber or dog-kicker.  In fact, ignoring Derek Smart's games which are already covered in other articles, his controversy seems to me to be the most notable and verifiable facet of the man.  I'm not sure we should let a public figure who has earned a negative reputation outside of wiki get a free ticket out of that reputation here, simply because the verfiable articles that mention the controversy aren't entirely about the controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.109.99 (talk • contribs).


 * The inability to use Bill Huffman's site about Derek Smart is irrelevant. Huffman is a known harrasser and stalker of Derek Smart going back almost eleven years. His is a biased party who has time and time again proven his obsession with this person in several places and not just on Usenet. None of the material on Huffman's site will pass WP:RS even they were written by a Pulitzer prize winner because none of it is factual nor can be relied upon. Thats like asking Ann Coulter to author Bush's autobiography. The only reason Huffman and his friends want the site on the Wiki is because it is a single source of hate and misinformation directed at Smart. Sort of like saving people the trouble of going to Usenet. Also, Smart has clearly come out and said that most of the stuff on there that Huffman cites from Usenet and converted into .txt files were fabricated and did not come from him. Further, without the threads to show context, the snippets that Huffman posts are clearly designed to be skewed and taken out of context in an attempt to make Smart look bad. Ask Huffman why he feels the need to create text files of material that he claims is readily available on Usenet, when he can just post the links. Ask him why his websites have time and time again been successfully closed by Smart's attorneys working in concert with ISPs and why he no longer has a primary ISP but rather is hosting it on one of his supporter's sub domains on their box.


 * Your point about the public figure is foolish at best and you sound just like Huffman or his ilk. I have already stated that if this is indeed the picture of Smart, let them post WP:RS articles showing this. Usenet or a stalker's website do not count and do not pass that test. They won't find a single one. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whenever Derek Smart (or the Supreme_Cmdr) mentions me you can rest assured that it is likely a fabrication. Smart's attorneys have never taken a website down that was put up by me. Smart never had any of my websites taken down for libel or untrue statements. All posts archived there are the same as what is in Google. They are copied there because URL's change. For example, when they were originally archived, There was no Google, I don't think that there was even a Dejanews early on. Dejanews went out of business and sold their archives to Google. I have challenged Derek many times that if he can point out one fabricated post or lie that I told in the archives I would happily take down the whole website and not put up another. Supreme_Cmdr continues trying to fight an external link as if it had to follow WP:RS. That is totally fallacious. To use Derek's terms, the flamewar involved two sides, the naysayers (or detractors) and the supporters. The Werewolves website is a fair and accurate view of the flamewar primarily from the point of view of the naysayers. It does NOT need to be WP:NPOV to be an external link in the article. Mr. Smart is welcome to create a website of the flame war from the supporter's point of view and I would be the first to say that an external link to it should be added in the Derek Smart article. Bill Huffman 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Liar. Thats all I have to say about that. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Supreme_Cmdr, you have made general accusations that I contend are false. I reponded to your false accusations and gave you an opportunity to have the Werewolves site removed if you could but support some of your statements. The impetus cannot be placed on me to to prove your accusations false. I have even left up an old website to try and blunt your repeated lies about taking down my webpages, . The impetus is on you to support your accusations. If you cannot then please cease making such false accusations. It is a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Bill Huffman 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Supreme_Cmdr, may I first state that you have not answered a question that I had mirrored, about Derek Smart notable as a game developer before the completed development of his first game. As to an article showing Derek Smart's controversy, I have already offered that the Gamers with Jobs 'Why I love Derek Smart' article seemed to speak much on it.  Though it is not negative in tone, it certainly points out the negative aspects of the man's behavior.  As such, I feel that my point about Derek Smart is not foolish.  He's a controversial figure, people are going to rub against that, and people are going to be fascinated by it.  Though it's a shame you feel that my statement is foolish, I stand by my statement of the man. 68.9.109.99 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC) passerby


 * I did answer your question. Read my response again please. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. You may have intended to respond to me with your answer, but unfortunately it is not there. I did however read your other responses and note that you mentioned something about him having gained recognition for the first game he was making.  If this was your intended response to me then I do not beleive that this is enough to consider him notable.  Though I do understand your statement, I would consider the litmus for a notable game developer to be the games he has developed, not a first game being developed.  Moreover, to say that he is notable because his game was previewed in a magazine and then to claim that those who do not agree with this do not know the situation might not be sensitive to the very many games that are previewed constantly, I would not consider the first notable preview of the first game a person is making to be enough to make the game developer notable. 68.9.109.99 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) passerby


 * Maybe I should reply on your talk page - this is interesting but could take up a lot of room here. You're asking reasonable questions. Metamagician3000 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks
Supreme Cmdr, personal attacks such as "Liar. Thats all I have to say about that. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" are NOT allowed on wikipedia. I don't care if there IS an ArbCom case going, if you continue, you WILL be reported to an uninvolved administrator to be blocked. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As if you think threatening to get someone blocked is somehow more civil than telling them they are likely to be sued. Personally I think pretty much anyone who has edited the Derek Smart article should just be banned from touching it ever again. There is just too much emotion and too little reason involved on every side. At least I can understand Supreme Cmdr's frustration. I'd be frustrated too, if I actually cared about the article in question. What I don't understand is why a certain number of editors thinks it's so vitally important to use Wikipedia as a venue for spreading unverified and largely unverifiable claims about this guy Derek Smart. If you want to vent your spleen, get a blog, for Mitra's sake, like the rest of us. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-11 20:56Z
 * I think I've been more than civil, and assumed more than good faith up to this point. However, WP:NPA and WP:NLT are blockable offenses, and Supreme_Cmdr has repeatedly violated them. Since when is enforcing good policy being incivil? And for the record, please keep your thinly veiled barbs to yourself, I have a blog, and I use it, and I'm not venting here. I'm editing the project as I've done for the past year. Making blanket assumptions about all other editors is similar to the behavior from Supreme Cmdr that got us here in the first place. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D. Suggesting that everyone associated with the article be banned from editing it was not a realistic suggestion, and responding in a snarky manner to what I perceived to be a snarky comment was not constructive. I can't un-ring the bell, but consider that post reconsidered. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-12 00:26Z
 * Personal attacks are rarely and only in extreme circumstances a blockable offense. Legal threats are a different matter. Thatcher131 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by what WP:NPA says Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to be handled through the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity, in particular,'''may result in a block without warning. ''However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". (Emphasis added). If my interpretation of the policy is incorrect, please tell me, as I'd very much like to be 100% clear on it (I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm sincerely asking you to let me know if my interpretation is wrong). &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it all before (rant)
There is a very disturbing trend on wikipedia as evidenced by this arbitration case and others, especially Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, but also at the current Sai Baba, Brahama Kumaris and Waldorf cases. Editors, with a long history of internet activism against someone (less often for someone) seem to have discovered Wikipedia and are using it as a soapbox to push very strongly held negative points of view. I guess that's why some of you are wikipedia editors, but not me. Is it really such an important part of someone's life and career that he kicked a coke machine that it belongs in an encyclopedia, even if you can prove it? I looked over the last war in between protections. Arguing from SEC filings is impermissible original research (interpreting primary sources to draw conclusions), and a blogger may be a reliable source if he is blogging in a field in which he is also a known, published author with a reputation. (in other words, Instapundit.com, a blog by Glen Reynolds, who is a law professor who has written several books, would be a reliable source for topics about which Mr. Reynolds has already published, but would not be a reliable source on other issues he blogs about, like digital cameras or cookware) I don't know about this specific blogger but it should be too hard to figure it out, except that too many contributors here have vested interests.

For all of that, the article at the moment looks pretty decent, all things considered. Many of you have stated or tacitly acknowledged that Derek Smart is a not-very-important game designer who is only notable because he's been a jerk on usenet. I'm disturbed that you see that as a reason to keep the article. If I came across an article that said John Doe is a menswear designer with a reputation for poorly made clothes, whose biggest claim to fame is the nasty and abusive way he responds to fashion critics who criticize his work I would speedy-delete it as an attack article. Just because you can write it that way doesn't mean you should. I'm also bothered that you would hold that view at all. I pulled several game reviews out of LexisNexis, including several reviews of other games that mentioned Smart in passing. That's a pretty clear sign that the magazine expects its readers to know who he is. The reviews of Smarts work mention his legal problems and reputation but also said things like "A renowned obsessive, Derek Smart is known for rewarding his fan base with a steady stream of quality content." I don't think the glee with which some people talk about Smart's problems is what Jimbo had in mind when he created Wikipedia and its certainly not why I signed up. Thatcher131 03:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. This is what myself, WarhawkSP and others have been saying for months. Your assessment is spot on and without a doubt the best assessment of this issue to date. The reason they are trying to push that Smart is not a notable developer, is because they hate him, are jealous (?) of him, have an axe to grind etc. Since there is no WP:RS source that backs up those claims, they want to pov-push and have Usenet articles as well as Bill Huffman's website included in the article. This is like what the politicians do in congress whereby they try to sneak in bills piggy backed on to other bills because their original bill failed to pass. It is an underhanded method. And they in doing so, try to ignore Wiki policy and then say that guidelines can be ignored because they are not policy.


 * You have people making ludicrous claims like 99% of stuff on Smart is negative, he is not notable for his games, his games are not notable etc without a shred of evidence to back it up, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. A man who has developed and published no less than nine games, has been in the industry for almost eighteen (?) years, is one of the most written (by WP:RS sources no less!) about developers in the industry, has worked with several leading people in the industry, was voted to the board of his IGDA chapter, is called up for commentary about the industry in general by many, many sources - is not notable? Thats the part that really irks me.


 * These people have an axe to grind and they hate him. The point of taiting the Wiki is because Wiki is considered one of the most authoritative sources of encyclopedia data in our history. Eventually Bill Huffman is likely to get sued by Smart who has threatened this repeatedly and when that happens his website is likely to disappear. What will be left? Usenet? Nobody goes there anymore for anything meaningful. Forums? Blogs? Nope, neither because they're can't be considered to be authoritative. So there's Wiki. Taint the Wiki entry and you have nothing short of a direct hit against Smart. I suspect that if this were to happen and Smart go involved we would see him take it to the very top and get Jimbo involved. Why? Because that's his style. He'll make a very loud noise about it, issue a press release, threatend legal action and all that. The result is that it that, like everything and anything to do with him, will become news. Everyone will flock to the page, the page will either get removed or edited according to Wiki policy and the noise will die down. The end result is all what we are going through right now will be in vain. This is why ArbCom needs to ensure that their decision is definitive and final. The Wiki should be devoid of pov-pushing and any and all material that fails WP:RS and WP:BLP.


 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Supreme Cmdr, I strongly suggest that you not mention lawsuits or libel or anything of that nature ever again. Firstly, it's not relevant to the article: if the article conforms to Wikipedia policy (primarily the three major content policies), then there will be no basis for a lawsuit. So stick to making it a good article by Wikipedia standards, and urge others to do the same, and the entire lawsuit angle is a non-issue. Secondly, it makes you look bellicose and disruptive. I believe you are sincere in what you believe, but for good or for ill what I believe is not at issue. This is in many ways a court of public opinion, and frequent references to lawsuits tend to tarnish one's reputation in that court (to put it mildly). If you want what you say to be taken seriously, you should avoid saying things that are often said by fruitcakes. That's not pretty, and it's not fair, but it's the reality of the situation, and the sooner you and I cope with it, the easier our time on Wikipedia will be. Consider what your goals are, and act in a manner most likely to accomplish them. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-12 19:19Z


 * I note that you state that the article currently looks fairly decent. I would like to respond to your general accusation though. While it is true that early on there have been instances where someone would post silly insults on the Derek Smart article. I know this only by looking back in the early history. I first learned of the artcle about maybe 6 or 7 months ago. I believe that Mr. Smart and I are the only people around here now that were present at the Usenet flame wars. I have never attempted to edit the article. That is not because I don't think I can't WP:NPOV but because Mr. Smart is already viciously attacking me saying that I'm trying to "taint" the article and it would only get far worse if I actually ever tried to edit the silly article. With the exception of Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawk I believe that the current set of editors are really dedicated to a good article. My personal view is that I think the article should probably be deleted because Mr. Smart's games are not sufficient notabilty and his notoriety is not worth the bother that editors are being put through. Have fun, Bill Huffman 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, I am only going to post this in order to make a serious point. I have already said before that the reason you engage myself and WarhawkSP is because you believe that one or both of us is Smart. I can't speak for WarhawkSP, but I can safely say that I am not Derek Smart nor am I WarhawkSP sock puppet.


 * As per the link I posted yesterday about online harrassment, I want to bring your attention to this excerpt


 * "'Harass' means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person."


 * As you can see, because you believe that I or WarhawkSP are Derek Smart, hence the reason that you are here, you are breaking the stalking and harrassment laws of California and Florida. If this were just a venue where people meet, the opinion would be different. But the fact of the matter is that over the past eleven years, you have shown a clear pattern of following Smart around the net and to various places. Places where you have been banned or treated with disdain. So, your showing up on a Wiki that is about Smart, can be construed as just another way that you are carrying out stalking and harrassment. It is my hope that you will carefully think about this because the laws of today are not the same laws that were around back when you started this action.


 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cease your violations of WP:NPA. This nonsense has no place here. If you are so sure that I've broken the law then report me to the police otherwise please stop your violations of WP:NPA. It serves no valid purpose here. Bill Huffman 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that if you stop attacking Derek Smart and Supreme Cmdr with unsubstantiated claims, that Supreme Cmdr will stop responding by characterizing those unsubstantiated claims in a manner you find distasteful. It takes two to tango, Bill Huffman. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-12 19:29Z


 * Interesting theory, unfortunately it is shattered by the facts. For example, Mr. Smart was writing attack pieces against me before I even had an account on Wikipedia. Also, please point out one unsubstantiated claim that I've made against Derek Smart. Thank you, Bill Huffman 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are enough pigs in that sty, thank you. The point remains that if you do not wish to be emboiled in a scuffle, perhaps you ought not to pick fights. You are not the only editor at fault here, but you are not helping matters, and you seem to take glee in provoking Supreme Cmdr. This is not productive, and in my opinion it makes you no less at fault than she is, despite the fact that you are clear-headed enough to stay just within Wikipedia's formal policies. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-12 21:25Z


 * Just because I find it amusing when Mr. Smart causes problems for himself it does not mean that I have provoked him, unless by provoking in this case you mean pointing out to Supreme_Cmdr that there was discussion going on here that I don't think he was previously aware of. In my view I was doing the truth and the good of the article a service. Assuming that the goal of this ArbCom case is the truth and thereby making an environment where a good article has a chance, where the current article can be improved on. In my view the main reasons that the Derek Smart article is in as good of shape as it currently is is due to Jeff coming in and rewriting it and then the article being locked down from further edits. The deterioration had quickly begun on Jeff's work by the WP:SPA accounts . If the article had not been locked down, I would guess that the article right now would be almost as bad as when Jeff started his rewite. So I let Supreme_Cmdr know about the discussion here and gave him a chance to voice his side. Which I think he has done as expected. Did I expect that his side would involve personal attacks against me? Of course that is the historical behavior behavior from even before I had a Wikipedia account. If that is your definition of provoking then I guess that I'm guilty. However, I disagree with your assertion that it hasn't been productive. I think that it has demonstrated that Supreme_Cmdr has made threats of lawsuits and demonstrated his difficulties in working with other editors. Which from the point of view of getting positive results out of the ArbCom case I am gessing will be productive. Regards, Bill Huffman 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been, as far as I know, no evidence that Supreme Cmdr has threatened legal action against you or anyone else on Wikipedia. The claim was made on the RfA/Derek Smart/Workshop page, and editors other than myself have agreed that it was not supported by the evidence provided. Accusing someone of making threats without evidence is at least as reprehensible as making such threats. It may actually be worse: people who make such threats may believe what they say, and are typically acting out of anger on the spur of the moment, while people who fabricate such accusations know very well that what they have claimed is not supported by the evidence. It is particularly reprehensible when such accusations are made with the foreknowledge that they will result in angering another editor beyond the point where they retain sound judgment. You have just admitted that you have deliberately baited Supreme Cmdr, and that is entirely aside from the fact that, so far, you have provided no evidence to back up the accusations with which you keep baiting him (e.g., being Derek Smart, making legal threats, being a sockpuppet). I do not know how anyone else feels about it, but I am far more sympathetic to Supreme Cmdr as a result of your participation in this discussion. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-13 01:03Z
 * I would not agree here, I find Bill Huffman far easier to sympathise with than Supreme_Cmdr, personally. Bill Huffman is often easy-going in messages I have read, Supreme_Cmdr has apparently broken many rules, for me I find that it's easy to find fault in the one that seems to be acting 'above the rules' (though this is not to imply any such mind set in any editor).  So I find myself toning back sympathy for Bill Huffman in attempt to maintain neutrality, personally.  I also feel that even if Supreme_Cmdr is not or did not intend to be threatening Bill Huffman, that he still seems to have accused Bill Huffman of illegal activity.  I beleive that such a thing can be considered inflammatory.  I would also like to refute the idea that the presence of an editor, by its nature, can be considered provocation, if Bill Huffman's qualified confession of events is to be considered that's my take on it.  I would, however, offer that even if Supreme_Cmdr is Derek Smart, and he were at a table with all of us having lunch and discussing on this talk page while on laptops, and he posted in front of us claiming he is not Derek Smart where we could all watch over his shoulder as he clicked 'save page' under Supreme_Cmdr, we should ideally still take him at his word rather than refer to him as Derek Smart (this is not to imply any probability or improbability, in any areas, of the hypothetical statement I just made).  I state this because I beleive that assuming good faith does more than defend us against erroneous conclusions, but I've stated my opinions on that before.  By the way, I'd also like to thank everyone for their patience. :)  This is a potentially volatile discussion and no one has been short with me despite my newcoming to this venue, very kind of you all!  68.9.109.99 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) passerby


 * Congratulations, Thatcher131. You have made sense as few others here have. I wish I'd written that. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-12 04:53Z


 * I agree with much of your assessment Thatcher. I too am disturbed by the presence of editors with axes to grind, and I am also disturbed by not insignificant presence of editors at Wikipedia who edit articles about themselves without announcing themselves. But I'm not completely convinced that controversial behavior cannot of itself make an individual notable, nor that said controversies cannot be described without descending into an attack piece. Ward Churchill for example would be an unknown academic save for the firestorm he raised after 9-11. We don't delete his article because the description of the controversy he raised is not flattering to him. While Smart and Churchill are obviously (in)famous for different reasons and at different scales, the fact that the magazines Thatcher cites expect their readers to know who Smart is and why he is controversial is of itself pretty good evidence that he and the controversies surrounding him are of encyclopedic notability, at least within the gaming community. Encyclopedias are generally used to consult such subjects. For instance, if I didn't know who Ward Churchill was and saw him mentioned in passing in a magazine article, I would probably consult Wikipedia to quickly bone up. Likewise for wide variety of other subjects. Thus I remain hopeful that the article can be done right without being unfair to Mr. Smart. Citing the review that takes note of the quality content would be one obvious way to balance any content that might be unflattering. --Beaker342 05:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, many people's articles will contain some negative information, and some will even mostly be negative. I would just prefer that the people making that decision not be involved in prior or concurrent off-wiki advocacy in the matter, and not be people who enjoy pulling someone down, but do it reluctantly.  I hasten to add that I checked Bill Huffman's main space contribs (none to Derek Smart) and some of his Talk:Derek Smart edits, and didn't see anything to be concerned about.  He may be one of the few advocates who can put it aside here.  (Unlike some folks in the other disputes I mentioned.)  What finally got me percolating was the view, expressed here and on Talk:Derek Smart several times, that He's only notable because he's a notable jerk, so we must have an article on him, and If we can't include the USENET posts as a source for the flame war there would be nothing left to write about and so on, which I think is incorrect (because he does seem to be a notable game designer of which the flaming is only part), and also the wrong attitude to have. Thatcher131 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You see, nobody is saying that there shouldn't be negative information in the article. The point of the matter is that not only should the material meet WP:RS policy, but is should also adhere to the stricter guidelines of WP:BLP. This is what editors with an axe to grind don't want to honor and for obvious reasons. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your actions differ from your words. In an article about one of Smart's games, you have attempted to remove even the word "criticize" as it refers to a source that very clearly criticizes the game.  In my experience, you have not demonstrated an actual respect for Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, AGF, and NPA but only reference them when it seems to suit your particular point of view.  You have even removed sources that are self-documenting and non-controversial but that criticize Smart, in defiance of the consensus among most editors of the Smart article.  Your insistence on strict adherence to policies such as BLP and RS are particularly puzzling in light of many of your own edits (including several with very misleading edit summaries).
 * I can and often do work with editors who disagree with me and I do so on a regular basis on some articles about very controversial and high-profile subjects. This is the first such article on which I have worked in which other editors have been unable to work together over a long period of time and I attribute most of that to your inability to work with others and within the policies and culture of Wikipedia.  There are certainly a few editors who have wandered in from time to time to vandalize or make anti-Smart POV edits, even a few that have stuck around, but you are by far the most disruptive editor of the article.  --ElKevbo 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, here's the problem as I see it
The problem is, I agree with you that as written the page constitutes something of an attack (pretty borderline I think, but I could easily see it going to that point) against Mr. Smart. But, all that being said, I think there is no doubt that Mr. Smart is inclusible in wikipedia, certainly notable enough to merit an article and an important part of gaming history to deserve one. So the problem is then, that Speedy Deleting the article owuldn't solve the problem that it's still a worthy article for inclusion and it would just bring about the same debate the next time it was written. This means that we need to solve the underlying problem rather than just deleting the article outright. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the article in its current locked-down state is not so bad. Everyone's focused on Supreme Cmdr being a dick and probably getting some sort of ban for incivility. Fine as far as it goes.  There are others practicing what would be called "gotcha journalism" if this was a newspaper that I don't care for at all. Thatcher131 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"If we can't include the USENET posts as a source for the flame war there would be nothing left to write about and so on, which I think is incorrect (because he does seem to be a notable game designer of which the flaming is only part), and also the wrong attitude to have" I disagree with this as well. It's not the flamewar that makes Smart notable. The flamewar makes him notorious not notable. The GAMES he designed make him notable, both for their scope (I'm pretty sure that whichever one of the battlecruiser games I played by him was quite possibly the most in depth space combat fleet sim ever), and for their sales records. If for nothing else he is notable for that. In addition, he's notorious for the flamewar, and that ADDS to his notability, but it does not define it. I want to make it very clear, because it seems that some people think that I have an axe to grind against Mr. Smart (I don't) or that I've substantively contributed to the article (I haven't). &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on all points. This ArbCom case has been opened because of disruptive editing by a handful of editors and I think we're getting sidetracked by other issues.  --ElKevbo 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From Talk:Derek Smart, "But for the USENET flamewars, Derek Smart would be an obscure and unknown software developer. " One example, there are others. From this page, above:


 * Smart's involvement in the flame war is important to the article because it is the primary source of his notability. The inability to cite that information may, in fact, reduce the notability of the subject. UseNET is the only impartial source of citation regarding this significant portion of the subject because the only cited information will be writings by Derek Smart himself. If we can't include information about Smart's controversial nature, the article should probably be nominated for deletion.--Jeff 05:12, 8 January 2007


 * So there are evidently some people who think that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a bio on a person who, in their judgement, is only notable for a flamewar. I happen to think they are wrong on the issue of notability as a game designer.  Even if they were right about his lack of notability as a game designer I think they have the wrong attitude.  If they want the article only because he is a famous flamer, and if there was broad community support for this view, I doubt if I would stick around. Thatcher131 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree. I do not deny that there really are "anti-Smart" people and that some of them have edited the article in question.  I do, however, deny Supreme_Cmdr's apparent claim that "anyone who disagrees with me is anti-Smart."  I can't definitively speak for other editors but I got involved in this only because I viewed it as an encyclopedia article that obviously needed some additional editors and not because I possess an inherent anti- or pro-Smart bias.  I don't think the article rises or falls on the Usenet and other subsequent flame wars but I object to the removal or suppression of material and related sources merely because one does not wish the subject to be viewed in a bad light.  That's inappropriate and it's not what we do.  I further object to the behavior of several of the editors involved in this article and Supreme_Cmdr is at the top of that list.  It doesn't matter what his views are or even if he is right - his behavior is unacceptable.  --ElKevbo 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with ElKevbo. My two experiences with Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP didn't involve the use of the Werewolves link at all; one involved the removal of some extraneous external links, while the other involved some much needed format changes. In each case, however, SC and WH called me a tinkerer and a vandal for no apparent reason. Their responses to my citations of multiple WP-policies were reversions with the lines "it was fine the way it is" and "there's no consensus", even though several other neutral editors voiced their approval.
 * My opinion on a solution to the Usenet situation runs somewhat along the lines of Megamagician3000's suggestion shown here: a short one or two-sentence statement mentioning that he's also known for his Usenet discussions: in fact, the current status of the article is just fine by me. But frankly, I could care less. All I want at this point is to improve this article without being harassed by two editors who are textbook examples of WP:OWN. Since the numerous blocks placed on SC and WH haven't indicated that they understand their behavior is unacceptable, I think that more drastic action is required. Cardinal2 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with me is one thing, but threatening to leave Wikipedia just because you disagree with something said is sensationalist nonsense, probably just like my saying the article should be deleted is. Another thing; me thinking Derek Smart is less notable if we are disallowed from including his UseNET posts is not representative of any axe to grind or a desire to impact the article negatively. It simply reflects my underlying feelings of inclusion. It just so happens that, in this case, the article's subject has a vast amount of information about him that some may perceive as negative. The fact is the man is what he is and it's important that his entry on Wikipedia reflects his history. If I was a quasi notable belligerent turd and people wrote about me as they have with Derek Smart, my wiki article should reflect that.--Jeff 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, and its not about you. You were the most convenient example.  There are some things occurring that have made me question whether to continue to invest my time here.  One of those happens to be the inability of the community to deal with people who have a long history of activisim and advocacy against someone or something and see Wikipedia as Shangri-La; this is just one of several current and recent cases following the trend. Thatcher131 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I disagree with you on one thing, Thatcher131. If something had become notable, through verifiable information, about or as something that is solely negative, I don't think it would be a bad thing for wikipedians to want to report this.  I don't think this applies to this article, the subject HAS created works.  However I feel that if one were to say that it is wrong to add encyclopedic knowledge if there isn't positive material, would be doing wikipedia and the growth of knowledge as a whole, a disservice.  As to the Shangri-La statement to those who have negative things to say, it is possible, especially with negatively viewed figures.  It's hard to fight for someone who is rude, especially if you're being rude to you while you're trying to help.  It's easy to side with those who are polite, especially if they are trying to be reasonable in their suggestions while they're being polite.  Might I ask though, are you sure that's a reason you should leave?  It seems like a reason to stay, heads that can stay cool can be rarer than it sometimes seems.  I would ask though, that you consider the possibility that it is not necessarily only those with a history of advocacy against someone involved in editing here, it might also be those with a history of advocating for someone, and most importantly I say that it doesn't matter.  I only say this because it might be dangerous to say 'these editors are on that side, they're not neutral'.  I feel it is dangerous because I feel that once you do so, considering that the goal here is neutrality, it could be tantamount to considering them an enemy of the project.  Which could, by definition, cause one to conclude that the project itself is ineffective as 'enemies will never go away'.  Personally, I would disagree with such an assessment.  In case it needs to be said, all my opinions should be considered with the knowledge that I am new to wikipedia. 68.9.109.99 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) passerby
 * Thatcher, I understand your frustration. I've felt it too and am feeling it right now. Just wanted to let you know that other editors feel that way as well. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeating myself
I find I am repeating myself, and I detest that. I believe I have said what needs to be said concerning this RfA. Barring the presentation of new evidence, or a grievous error in judgment on Supreme Cmdr's part (I think the latter is more likely), I am withdrawing from the discussion. I only make a point of saying this to prevent the perception that I have "surrendered", or some such thing. -- BBlackmoor (talk) &bull; 2007-01-13 02:54Z


 * I might just do the same. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no surrenderring because nobody is going to "win" here. I do wish to point out one thing here, please view the "proposed decision" page, and note that at least one and perhaps two (depending on how you read the context) of the arbitrators actually DO believe that supreme cmdr has been making legal threats. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  06:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I don't see any such notion that any arbitrator believes that I have made legal threats. Please provide a link to this evidence. Also, I am sure that whatever the arbitrators believe, will be supported by evidence if any. It is highly unlikely that they will find me guilty of making legal threats when in truth I have done no such thing. All I have done thus far is point out the potential for legal action against some of the material which may end up on Wiki. Wiki policy itself guards against the inclusion of such material and cite legal action as the reasons for the guidelines. So does pointing this out make it a legal threat?


 * Thus far, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that clearly shows that I have made a legal threat. So please post them so that I can address them clearly. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have not looked. I very clearly stated it was on the Proposed decision page. If you actually took the time to check said page, you'd have found this edit (diff included) by Arbitrator FloNight that clearly finds a legal threat, and cites a diff. There is also a second, by Blnguyen, stating "Per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" which, depending on context could read as a support of FloNights finding of a legal threat, or it could be in support of Dmcdevit's statement that no exhoneration is needed. Either way, there is some. Supreme Cmdr, are you a lawyer? Are you a paralegal? Are you a law student? If you are not, I think you are going to be hard pressed to actually know the true definition of what constitutes defamation, libel and such, especially given the depth of case law and precedent regarding such claims on the internet. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have looked. You apparently don't understand written English . You're just doing what you and your friends always do. That being trying to twist what is written to suite your purpose. Here is what the ArbCom person said:


 * "This edit on Jan 8 2007 appears to be crossing the line."


 * The operative phrase here being: appears to be. It is not fact. Apart from that, it is a cautionary opinion. And when you look at the edit he cited, you will see quite clearly that I did not make a threat, but pointed out how Wiki would be open to legal action if it were found that libelous material were on the Wiki. This is no different from what I posted above. Stating an opinion cannot be regarded as making a threat. But that hasn't stopped you and your friends, has it? Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You apparently will deny deny deny everything. That's fine, but now there are 4 arbitrators against that finding. Maybe you refuse to accept any possibility you may be wrong. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop grandstanding ("I'm leaving but I'm not surrendering") and degenerating every thread into a personal argument ("that hasn't stopped you and your friends, has it?", "You apparently will deny deny deny everything"). It's not becoming to any of you, especially on the talk page of an arbitration case.  Please confine further discussion to the merits of the workshop proposals and avoid personalizing this any further. Thank you. Thatcher131 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)