Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-21 Revert war on Derek Smart page

Mediation Case: 2006-07-21 Revert war on Derek Smart page

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Derek Smart article

Who's involved?

myself, Nandesuka, Fox1, Ehheh, Nuggetboy, Dfgarcia and several anon persons.

What's going on?

For many years there has been a feud between supporters and detractors of Derek Smart. That feud has since spilled into his Wiki page. Both sides (I am neutral btw) have been engaged in a slo-mo revert war over content for that page.

Particularly the detractors seem to want to turn his page into one of negative entries and which border on nothing more than character assassination. The same thing they were doing on Usenet prior to Derek Smart excusing himself from Usenet discussions bseveral years back.

Recently another post was made on Usenet which again drew attention to his Wiki page and the number of people (some anon) now only flock to the page to vandalize it and further their cause. A look at the reverts for vandalism and whatnot clearly shows this behavior.

Of interest is a link to a page which was put up by a well known Derek Smart net stalker and detractor, Bill Huffman (see talk). This is the same person who was primarily responsible for instigating, igniting and promoting the Usenet flamewars for which both parties are now infamous. The same seems to be slowly happening on the Wiki page for this well known game developer.

Now a new and - obviously biased and inexperienced admin, Nandesuka who for some reason has now showed up on the Derek Smart Wiki page, has taken upon himself to do whole reverts without any consideration of the contents. Particularly today, after extensive research by myself and after which I presented more information about the history of Derek Smart's developments, this person did a whole revert, citing original research. IMO, his argument is baseless and without merit because the material added does not fall under such guidelines and as such is wholly acceptable by Wiki guidelines.

What would you like to change about that?

The external link does not fall within the Wiki guidelines and should not be allowed. This has been extensively discussed and is the primary focus of the slo-mo revert war because these same people want it in his Wiki.

Also the recently added content which is based on extensive research should be allowed to stay because it is well within Wiki guidelines.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

There is no need to work discreetly. All comments can be posted on my Talk page.

Mediator response

• Why not simply give the benefit of the doubt and organize points and their rebuttals into the approprtiate sections? As policy states, let the facts speak for themselves. --Scienceman123 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually a mediator handling this case? No one has commented on the article talk page. --Ideogram 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing case; Mediation Cabal cannot handle

It does not appear that the Mediation Cabal is the proper avenue for handling this dispute. We are an informal initiative and cannot impose sanctions upon any editors or force the acceptance of a certain version of an article. I would recommend instead that you request administrator involvement in the article and the opinions of third parties to come to some sort of clear consensus about the page. You also should remember that consensus may or may not act in your favor, so you must be open to other suggestions to be willing to come to some sort of agreement. With that said, I am closing this case. Cowman109^Talk 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

I have been an occasional spectator of the Derek Smart feud. His online persona is fascinating and is what brought my attention to his Wiki article in the first place. I would not argue the point about the feud's existence. However, I would argue that the feud has not "spilled into" this article. This would assume that the parties involved in the article-editing are his "detractors" and are editing in bad faith. I really just believe the content of this article includes information that Supreme Cmdr (from now on referred to as simply SC) simply doesn't like.

My opinion is that SC is not neutral as claimed. In fact, I'll go out on a limb as say I think this is Derek Smart himself, despite claims to the contrary. This is suggested by SC's tone, terminology ("detractors", "stalker"), and the simple fact that "Supreme Cmdr" is Derek's precise username on his own website. If it were true that SC is actually Smart, original research should prevail here as an argument. Even if SC is not actually Mr. Smart, this complaint is full of assumptions which are arguable at best and ridiculous at worst.

• There is the assumption that the "detractors" are here and are continuing the feud: "Particularly the detractors seem to want to turn his page into one of negative entries and which border on nothing more than character assassination." - assuming bad faith.
• I am confused about the criticism of Nandesuka on NOR when in the same paragraph SC says "after extensive research by myself".
• The werewolves link, which SC has repeatedly removed claiming "unverifiable". Just because a site shines a negative light on a subject does not exclude it from being a valid source of information.

Ultimately, SC assumes "bias" whenever this article is edited or reverted. As I understand Wikipedia strives for consensus on subjects, it seems there already is consensus and the only bias is that of SC.

Chris 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The crux of this issue is this: Supreme Cmdr is not a good-faith WP editor. He created his account with one goal, sanitizing the DSmart page, and has never deviated from that or considered anything resembling compromise. He has knowingly misrepresented WP policy when it suits his needs, and has ignored policies completely when they did not.

• Insists that verifiability policy applies to all material in external links. Will not respond to statements that this is not the intent of the policy.
• Unapologetically breaks 3RR (User is blocked at the time of this posting).
• Freely admits that he is conducting original research, will not respond to requests to abide by NOR.
• Exhibits serious conspiracy issues, assumes anyone who edits the page is part of a group of organized defamers "from USENET," seems to have very little concept of how most editors browse WP for articles needing attention

Fox1 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You folks can levy whatever accusations you want and continue to make foolish and radical assumptions. None of it changes the fact that you folks are hell bent on continuing your compaign of portraying this developer in a light that is not shared by the majority and with information that is not outside the Wiki guidelines but is also indicative of an orchestrated vendetta. My inference that this feud has spilled over here is quite valid. But only a neutral person with all the facts, will be able to offer a definitive opinion. That is why I initiated this mediation. If I was one sided, I wouldn't have bothered, nor wasted my time. So why don't you folks leave out the accusations, speculations, commentary etc, until the mediation is decided?

As for you Fox1, if you think I'm going to get involved in your infantile and foolish arguments which are largely baseless and without merit, then you must be mistaking me for BBlackmoor. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for generously providing additional documentation of paranoid delusion, and your statement that you won't get involved with statements I made.... in January... that you already responded to... and I wasn't even the last poster. Yeah, not sure what you were even implying, there.

I would also like to submit material quoted from Mr. Nandesuka's talk page...

Evidence of Megalomania! That's right, after claiming the he, and only he, understands the NOR rules, SC goes on to say:

This - again - is one of the reasons why Wiki is an unmitigated failure and seemingly nothing more than a glorified chat room / forum when heated items are the issue at hand. NONE of you folks have the skills nor the training to negotiate - nor understand fully - the rules of the Wiki. Thats what happens when a bunch of unprofessional and 'common' folk are put in positions of authority and to vet stuff that they simply have no knowledge of. A system like that has proven time and time again to be a social failure.

That's right folks, SC, the user with edits to only one miniscule topic, is the only one here qualified to interpret and apply WP policy. Despite the fact that he hasn't been able to give a whiff of documented support for, let me check.... ah, ANY of his assertions regarding the page or WP policy, he would like to be treated as the recognized expert that he is in the field of... original research on Derek Smart?

I'm sorry, I'm having a very difficult time taking this seriously. Heck we already had one mediator throw up his hands and bail on this article, I don't see this going anywhere.

Fox1 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I just noticed this:

So why don't you folks leave out the accusations, speculations, commentary etc, until the mediation is decided?

You... you still don't know what mediation even DOES, do you? Sigh, let me give you a hint, mediation is not arbitration. But no, no, let's go with your interpretation of all WP policies, you're doing great so far.

Fox1 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude, whatever. If you think you're going to drag me into your stupid round Robin argument, you're sadly mistaken. You are once again using the same hostile language you levied at BBlackmoor when he too called you on your antics on that page. In the land of the blind, a one eyed man is king. Wiki is obviously the only place where you think that you can exert whatever authority you think you have on something like this. Newsflash: You're wrong. It is crap like this that I got tired of dealing with and why I initiated this mediation. When you go all over the net (yes, I saw one of your posts on the QT3 forums) trying to draw attention to your 'cause', it is enough to make anyone wonder what your motive is. And you say I'm not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs)

Please, just stop for a moment. I'm trying to help you. Mediation, the process you are currently requesting, is not what you are looking for. Mediation is a non-binding process where an uninvolved 3rd party helps users resolve a dispute through dialogue and compromise. I know you don't want compromise, you want your version, and even if you are 100% in the right, mediation does not have the ability to enforce your version. That's arbitration, as I tried to point you to above.

Yes, I realize that now. I was going to initiate an arbitration over the weekend but got side tracked with RL issues. I was also reading up on how to get a page lock. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm perplexed by the offsite forum you linked to. It has an individual with a similar username to mine, posting completely non-confrontational amusement with the WP Derek Smart article on like the 4th page of an existing thread.

That's enormously amusing that his Wikipedia page came up, I think I've done the majority of the substantive editting to that in the last 3 or 4 months. Since then I've been locked in a really unimpressive edit-war with a strident smartfan named "Supreme cmdr" who categorically denies being DS, uses the word "libel" like punctuation and regards Huffman as roughly comparable to Heinrich Himmler. Hmmmm... The awesome thing about it is that the majority of my time has been spent removing the blatant anti-Smart comments and vandalism, but you know what they say about good deeds and whether they go unpunished.

THAT is "drawing attention to" a "cause"?

You missed my point. Nevermind. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yeah, I can just as plausibly deny being that user on QT3 as you can deny having a lifetime ban there.

If its a coincidence then fine. I only came across it when someone else sent me a post about it because they recognized your Wiki handle on QT3. I'm not DS. Anyone who knows him know that he never ever posts anon. Its not his style. But whatever your assumptions are they are yours. DS is a very vocal individual and if he wanted to get involved in this Wiki war going on in his page, he would have. As I mentioned a while back I sent him email alerting him to the issue and asked him if he wanted my username since he is the Supreme Cmdr. He declined and told me to piss off. In case you are wondering, yes I am a member of his community but I am not him. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fox1 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you're "trying to draw attention to your 'cause'"? What might your motives be?

Fox1 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not DS so please stop. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protection request based on an untruth

One of the particapants in this mediation requested a lock on the effected page, but they stretched the truth quite a bit to get it:

The original request for lock was based on an untruth by the requester. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=66224209

Will someone please add full protection to the Derek Smart page please? For many months now it has been the target of edit waring and it doesn't seem to be getting any better; especially with the anons. The latest edit I did is the most current based on recent revisions by most of us editing that page. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While the latest edit is the "most current" by definition, it in no way represents any agreement or consensus by "most of us editing that page" and clearly adds a big chunk of unsupported and un-verified text that was not present previously.

It in no way reflects "recent revisions by most of us editing that page" and to claim so is dishonest.

Protection does not endorse the current version of the page, as noted in the protection notice. It simply prevents edit-warring. --Ideogram 16:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that - but the request does demonstrate a certain believe of a truth that does not agree with reality. It is difficult to reach a consensus when one of the participants believes that something they posts represents "most of us editing the page" when it obviously does not.

Replied on article talk page. --Ideogram 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)