Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to Addhoc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SC's endorsement under wrong section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nuggetboy signature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on supreme_cmdr claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Delivery vs. Content 

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nuggetboy's signature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: As RFCs don't have an official "end", you might as well get posting. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged abuse of admin powers