Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr

Threats of future non-consensus edits
I don't know how germane these are to the RfC at hand, but I note some recent threats from SC to edit against consensus:


 * Threat to never allow a description which SC doesn't like for the Werewolves link
 * Threat to return with an "anonymizer" (if banned) and continue to edit

Chris 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you feel these threats are not relevant to a discussion regarding your behavior? - Chris 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind ... I see they're included. - Chris 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this earlier mediation attempt relevent:
 * 75.17.140.87 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, did NicholasTurnbull produce findings? Addhoc 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem so, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. This is his only diff for the cabal case, there is nothing in the cabal case talk page, and only this on the DS talk page. - Chris 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Addhoc
I assume by "Edit 26", you meant this (it's currently numbered 26)? I'd respond to this that it is simply a revert back to SC's version of 3 August. As well, the edit summary is misleading in that the nine edits since his 3 August edit he's suggesting are "non-consensus".

"Edit 29" I assume is this. The point of this highlight is WP:CIVIL.

I've replaced "Edit 47" with a more appropriate diff.

Chris 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed my comments to "Edit 49". Thanks. Addhoc 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SC's endorsement under wrong section?
I believe that SC's endorsement signature should go under the "Response" section and not under the "Outside View" section, seeing that he's the one who's the subject of this RfC, and that he wrote the text within the "Response" section. I'd rather not relocate the text myself, as I'm not sure the etiquette of what could be construed as "changing someone else's vote". --Tomlouie 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuggetboy signature
I was going to move Supreme Cmdr's comments re: my signature here, but realized that that may not appear on the up-and-up. Those comments should really be here, but I probably shouldn't be the one to move them. (Edit series diff)

Anyway, a brief response to SC's concerns: my apologies to you and others if I appeared to be evasive by changing my alias. No matter if the name changes, all article history as well as Wiki-markup clearly has my true username; I'm certainly not hiding. I was using my first name before, but I figured having it on my user page was enough; using my actual username in sigs was in better form. With that said, I honestly don't know if what you did (changing my signature) is Kosher policy-wise, but it certainly doesn't seem "cool". I certainly have faith in the intelligence of wiki users that they'll know the different between a username and an alias.

(Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on supreme_cmdr claims
There are a few things which we must assume, first of all its that supreme_cmdr is biased towards smart, going through his edits with regard to the smart page as well as the 3000ad links we note that he has consistently,

1. Whitewashed Smart. and has never been critical of him.

2. Allways uses the Wiki guidlines when it helps his cause and conviniently forgets them when they are against him. A good example is his edit which shows him alleging that "There is a reported incident of one of Huffman's followers (a kid named LouisJM who lived near Smart) stalking Smart in real life.". When supreme_cmdr was asked about the source he said that to search the USENET. supreme_cmdr cries to high heaven quoting wiki guydlines with regard to USENET postings when some information against derek smart is quoted from the usenet, but he conviniently forgets it when it comes to huffman.

3. Supreme_cmdr can hardly call his edits a NPOV as the allegations against huffman in the above mentioned edit made by him are completely against wiki guidlines and libellous.

4. He makes claims that "Derek Smart is a living person and a noted computer gaming industry veteran". He may be a veteran in the industry, but Smart is hardly a "noted" computer industry veteran. All of his games have recieved average to mediocre reviews.

5. One lasting  solution to the above problem would be to ban supreme_cmdr from the wiki, this would bring a lasting change. For example supreme_cmdr was banned for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. During that period the article was a good article without controversy. The moment the ban expired he violated the page again.

220.247.250.239 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In your understanding, has a stronger case been presented than, for example, the recent case against ste4k? Addhoc 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that the RfC on SC's behavior would be judged on its own merits, regardless of other user's RfC. --Tomlouie 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure that you are right. However, I guess what I am saying is that I perhaps don't fully appreciate why 220.247.250.239 considers that a permanent ban could be appropriate. In my view, the RfC hasn't really proved very significant unilateral wrong doing by Supreme Cmdr. For example "always uses the Wiki guidelines when it helps his cause and conveniently forgets them when they are against him" isn't exactly unique to him. Addhoc 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually banning supreme_cmdr will quite possibly not do much in the long run as supreme_cmdr himself has said that if he is banned he will edit the wiki anonymously -  "If you ban me just because you don't like my edits, I will just come back with an anonymizer (which is what most seem to now be doing) and keep putting in edits. If you folks want to play grab ass over this, lets play".

The wrongdoing that supreme_cmdr has been doing can be categorised as,

1. Persistently and doggedly reverting/editing everything against smart.

2. Gloryfying Smart's "achievements" by violating wiki guildlines( vide above mentioned huffman edit), and making unsubtantiated and biased edits. To my knowledge supreme_cmdr has never made a single edit critical of smart.

3. The moment anyone posts anything against Smart like saying that "his games received average to mediocre reviews", he edits it out although its the truth. For example I added a link from a interview in which Smart himself says that bc3000ad was released in a unplayable form, supreme_cmdr removed it saying it was a non-consensus change which is not correct.

The above mentioned factors are what has been contributory to the sad situation, supreme_cmdr's obvious bias towards Smart, and his editing and reverting other users comments critical of Smart. Which naturally tends to make the others revert back there own modifications etc etc.

One possible solution would be to allow a free for all, let anyone edit the page without restriction, eventually supreme_cmdr and his alleged detractors will get tired of the whole issue and abandon the page waring (analogous to the flame wars from long ago petering out once Smart removed himself), and the page can be edited at leisure by unbiased people. How long this will take is anyones guess. Otherwise this article will be a mass of arbitrations, allegations, etc etc. 220.247.250.239 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am not defending his comment about returning if blocked, which clearly would not be appropriate. I would prefer if the page was unblocked, the page warring was abandoned and the page was edited towards featured article standard. Addhoc 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Werewolves
Could someone justify, paying specific and direct attention to WP:EL, the inclusion of the link to werewolves.org? Thanks. JBKramer 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck. There is no justification whatsoever. They are only doing it because it is the only place left that contains a wealth of derogatory and libelous material about Derek Smart, since nobody bothers with Usenet anymore. By having it in his Wiki bio, they want it to be a part of history. This, I can assure you, will never happen as I indicated in the rfc (which they filed against me) response which I filed.
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some hopefully NPOV points wrt the Werewolves as used as an EL for the DS page:


 * 1) Derek Smart is a developer surrounded by much Internet controvery. Said Internet controvery tends to be very prolific, persistent, and sometimes inflamatory.  Both negative & positive views of Derek Smart can be occasionally characterized as such.
 * 2) The Werewolves site is one of the oldest-running and visible site that summarizes and launches many negative remarks and allegations against Derek Smart.  As such, it is a major element of the controversy.
 * 3) An WP article about DS would be incomplete without mentioning DS's controversy, or at least refering to a separate article which focuses on DS's controversy.
 * 4) As such, a WP article about DS that describes DS's controversy would be incomplete without mentioning the Werewolve's site, at the very least, as an EL reference.
 * I believe that each of these points is NPOV, valid and justified.Tomlouie 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:EL and focus specifically on why this link does or does not follow it. Pay specific attention to "Links normally to be avoided," specifically points 2 and 3. If this conflict is notable, multiple reputable independant journalistic sources will have written about it. Use them, not some guys website. JBKramer 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for the inclusion of that link and I have clearly stated my position on this over here. I only allowed it to stand in the interest of a compromise. Then they started fighting over how the link should be described. You know the rest.
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is a gray area which, in my POV, leans towards inclusion:
 * Qualifies under point 3 under "What should be linked to".
 * May or may not fail point 2 under "Links normally to be avoided". The problem with whether werewolves is verifiable is that the core source material is from the old usenet threads.
 * (Point 3 under "avoided" doesn't apply since there have been multiple editors which have (re)placed the link)
 * I personally don't care either way about the site or whether it is linked. What I feel strongly about is chronicling (sp?) the online "battle" between the "supporters" and "detractors" of the online persona of Smart. This war of words happened.  I doubt that even Derek himself would deny his own participation. Because it happened on usenet--which is not a verifiable source under policy--do we have to ignore it here? (That's not a rhetorical question) If usenet were considered at all, werewolves would have no problem passing the test as it uses those threads extensively.
 * (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is my belief that unless there is a WP:RS that has mentioned the usenet conflict, it cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. JBKramer 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:RS that has mentioned it. You can find one over here. But they're not happy with that one because it doesn't have a negative slant against Smart. The Werewolves link is nothing but a blant attack site and does not chronicle the Usnet wars in any way, shape or form. All it does is catalog a bunch of Usenet posts, emails (some of which are forged, and/or manipulated or showing only a one sided view) by a known Smart detractor.
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, FFS, it's mentioned in the OTHER external link, from a RELIABLE source. Why not just link the gamespy article, quote some facts from it ("The release of the game, though, began what some consider the longest running flame war on the Internet") and be done with this stupidity? The only reason to include that werewolves link is because it's either a. vanity or b. just patently over the top. JBKramer 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing uncivil in my comment. JBKramer 11:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to my nightmare. Very soon they're going to be calling you a Derek Smart sock puppet, that you are one of his pseudonyms etc. This is exactly how it starts, which is why others (e.g. Bblackmoor just threw their arms up in the air and left. I refuse to let them do that to me; hence the reason we're here and this rfc even exists. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I am fully aware that the merits of this argument may not be evident to others, calling it "stupidity" is indeed uncivil. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling edit wars stupidity is civil. Stop engaging in edit wars. JBKramer 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart's own words were used Smart explained: "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble."  to describe his part in the flame war (with a link to an interview hosted at Derek Smart's website 3000AD) and supreme commander removed the text within a couple hours as unsourced, erroneous and false. 75.15.86.212 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

supreme_cmdr makes the allegation that the werewolves site contains USENET postings which are forged which is categorically wrong. I would request him to point out such a alleged post which can be cross checked with google groups archive of USENET postings. The posts that i have cross checked with usenet archives are indeed genuine. In the process I discovered much more vitriolous postings by Smart on the USENET rather than on the werewolves site.

The reason to include the werewolves site is because currently it is the most detailed analysis of the Flame Wars which smart was involved in as well as on Smart himself, as well as contains info about how the 3000ad debacle happened. If as supreme_cmdr alleges that the site is libellous then why hasn't Smart (who self confessedly has attorneys on speed dial, and is known for wildly pursuing legal action)taken legal action against it and shut it down. Like supreme_cmdr Derek Smart himself has the habit of twisting the truth to his advantage.

220.247.248.190 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After supreme commander originally claimed that the werewolves posts were faked from their usenet originals, he was asked multiple times, , for an example but he would not provide one. 75.15.86.212 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A straw poll on the talk page has a 77% consensus to include the link. Stifle (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could any discussions related to Derek Smart and not to Supreme Cmdr's conduct please be taken to Talk:Derek Smart, to avoid cluttering this RFC? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr identity
Is it taboo to question the actual identity of User:Supreme Cmdr? I don't know if I'm the only one, but I would bet money that this is actually Derek Smart. Is there an official course of action to verify SC's claims to the contrary?

(Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares? If it is him, he's being agressive in editing an article about him to remove a website that fails WP:EL and WP:RS. If it's not him, he's being agressive in editing an article about someone else to remove a website that fails WP:EL and WP:RS.JBKramer


 * I do (but that's just me). Guidelines recommend avoiding it. In this case, it'd be worse than openly editing your own article, seeing as how he's denied being Smart. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They obviously feel that anyone who is standing up for Smart, has to be him. Despite the fact that in his entire history, he is known for one thing. That is, apart from not being afraid of anyone, he never posts under an alias. Its just not his style. If anything, he would ask someone to do it. I wasn't asked. I only found out about the creation of the Wiki page on a forum. I came to look and thats how I got involved once these people started abusing it and turning it into another Usenet battleground.
 * He is aware of this Wiki, but wants nothing to do with it, as I indicated in my rfc response.
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * External links do not have to be reliable sources. Content in the encyclopedia is supposed to have reliable sources. There is a difference. Stifle (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that earlier he claimed to be Dan Brooks (but I cannot find the post). Dan Brooks features prominently the werewolves link and claimed (on usenet) to have tried to get the creator of the werewolves page fired.  He has never denied being Dan Brooks however. 144.189.5.201 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats the second time today you've posted that shit. Nowhere have I said who I was and don't intend to. But don't let that stop you from posting lies.
 * To the rest of you sensible folks, let me draw your attention to this editorial which is just one of many which already talk about how anyone rising to the defense of Derek Smart, is labeled to be him by the detracting opposition.
 * If you read Blue's News, then you probably noticed the recent thread concerning Derek's decision to release Battlecruiser Millennium as a free download. Anyone who has ever waded into a Derek Smart discussion in the past won't need to be told that the thread was knocked permanently off-topic within the first ten posts. After a few people made tentative insults, some poor soul named Strategos saw fit to rise to Derek's defense. Very soon thereafter, other forumgoers accused Strategos of being Derek Smart, masquerading under a pseudonym in defense of his own reputation. It should come as no surprise that Derek himself quickly popped in and sprayed gasoline everywhere in his customary style (see post #22).
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again, how many times do you have to be told to be civil? WP:CIVIL In any case, your link to the 3000ad forums don't seem to show Smart taking no interest in this debate. Far from it, he expresses interest in starting a "wiki jihad."--Beaker342 02:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was nothing uncivil about my comment. And you are comparing Apples to Oranges in comparing the forum post to what I was saying. He has no interest in posting on his Wiki page. Everyone else understood this. And besides myself, have you seen anyone else posting or fighting over this Wiki page and who is linked to him or his community? No. Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the discussion at hand instead of just jumping in and typing anything that comes to your fingers and making off the cuff and erroneous comments. And please learn how to edit before doing so.Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Use of curse words constitutes incivility, as does your constant belittling of myself and other users who disagree with you, and is a major part of the reason this rfc was filed against you. --Beaker342 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I can use swear words if I want; as long as I don't attack anyone. I said that what someone said was crap, shit, rubbish, nonsense, stupid etc is perfectly valid and doesn't violate any Wiki policy. If it does, by all means, please cite the source and quit carrying on like a baby who's had their milk spilled.
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you claim to not be personally attacking anyone and then in the same breath call me a baby? Here's what it says at WP:CIVIL, a link to which I have directed you on numerous occasions. WP:CIVIL is policy, and repeated infractions are grounds for mediation, blocks and even bans. According to WP:CIVIL, the following cases are examples of incivility: "Rudeness, judgmental tone in edit summaries, belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice, personal attacks, profanity directed at another contributor." Calling someone's edit "shit" is rude, a personal attack, and profanity directed at another user. Belittling me is personal attack. Whatever personal attacks may have been carried out on you by anons, they do not excuse your own incivility, and while flaming may work on other message boards, it accomplishes little here besides turning potential sympathizers against you.--Beaker342 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delivery vs. Content
While there is disagreement over specific content, there's room within a disagreement for calm discussion and compromise. Conducting ourselves cooly and amiably is preferable to inflamed and hostile arguments, regardless of who in WP started the first round of personal attacks or who got in the latest jab. SC, this essay may be apropos to this discussion, even though it's not policy or even guideline. I think your passion, zeal and commitment for the subject of DS is undeniable, but the WP is in part about communal editting, not individual zealotry. - Tomlouie | Talk 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I'm a zealot now because I refuse to let a bunch of biases folks rape someone's bio? Yeah right. Look, everyone is entitled to their opinions and you clearly have not read enough about this issue to render such an opinion. At least not a meaningful one. So please step aside unless you have something worthwhile to add and which is relevant to the issue at hand. Pointing the finger does not help. It just infuriates. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart mediation cabal closed
Well that settles that. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuggetboy's signature
SupremeCmdr, what do you mean when you say that you are going to get Stifle desysopped because Nuggetboy "only recently" began using "Chris" as a sig? Not only does that make very little sense on its own, a quick scan through a dozen or so Nuggetboy talk edits, including every Derek Smart talk edit that I checked and the first Nuggetboy talk edit I could find are all signed "Chris." Thanks, TheronJ 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And - all (6 or 7) of Nuggetboy|Chris's entries on the Supreme_Cmdr talk page use Nuggetboy|Chris also. [[User:75.15.86.212|] 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop using the invented tag Supreme_Cmdr_boy. Its purpose can only be to antagonize. It does little to help.--Beaker342 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin powers
If Supreme Cmdr would like to document his allegations that I abused my admin powers, I would be grateful. If not, I feel that it adds to the counts of incivility against him. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats funny. Seriously. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're making every attempt to silence me or cast me in a bad light without thinking clearly about the ramifications. I already answered your query. I am awaiting the resolution of this rfc before I embark on filing a complaint against you and the other admin. All you have to do is wait because you have no control over the process nor what I do. Your kangaroo court tactics simply will not stand. I'm not Derek Smart who will just disengage and disappear. Most of us have the time to stand up and fight for what we believe in. Even if it means going up against the establishment. Wars have been fought, lost and won for much less. Your pitiful attempts at antagonising and harrassing me are meaningless. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RFCs aren't resolved, per se. They're just a forum for people to comment on your behavior. You might be confusing this with arbitration, which has the authority to impose bans or other sanctions. In short, don't wait for some admin to come along and 'close' the RFC. It doesn't really work that way. Ehheh 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As RFCs don't have an official "end", you might as well get posting. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)