Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

message: Please kindly permit me to analyse the current problem, how it has arisen and why we request arbitration.
*Background -: Derek Smart is a game developer who has developed the battlecruiser (now universal combat) franchise. He has become notable in the internet and the gaming community [] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre , but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him  and the said games on the USENET [ (with signed postings)and various internet forums.
Derek Smart's contribution to the longest running flame war in the USENET history can be evidenced a google search  for his name which returns >50,000 entries.
Smart's  controversial nature as perceived by the gaming industry is evident as even reviewers of his games start of the review by mentioning his aggresive stance ] in defence of his own games.
The Derek Smart wiki article has been the subject of numerous edit wars with predominantly the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses have been found to originate from fort lauderdale florida where Derek Smart resides  and whose ISP is bellsouth. They have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and 3rr violations due to trying to remove cited commentrary critical of Smart not only from the article but from the discussion pages as well.
Due to the similarity of their abrasive writing style to Smart's and due to the fact that both of their IP addresses originate from Derek Smart's residential area, and due their vehement opposition to inclusion commentrary critical of Smart in this wiki they have been strongly suspected by involved parties to be sock puppets of Derem Smart himself. It should be noted that Supreme_Cmdr is the alias that Smart himself uses on his own forum, and  Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad".  As such serious consideration should be given as to if this bio falls under WP:AUTO.
When WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr were blocked recently, the article and the talk page were semi protected due to repeated edit warring by rotating IP addresses WP:ANI#Derek_Smart_edit_warring_and_User:Mael-Num] which originated from Fort Lauderdale, where Smart lives, which precipitated this request for arbitration.
*Arbitration request -: We will need arbitration regarding the following key points.
1. Inclusion of the [ http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/] site. 
This site is written by Bill Huffman who was a main participant in the aforementioned USENET flame war with Derek Smart. It contains a compendium of Smart's USENET postings with commentrary critical of them.  The site is a prominent site and extensively cross referenced by authorities with regard to Derek Smart, as can be evidenced by its high page rank via a  google search for "Derek Smart" , where it is in the 4th place. 
A majority consensus Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4 was favourable for the inclusion of the site as a External link.
WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr  have been vehemently protesting against the inclusion of the said site even as a external link, there prime argument being that the USENET posts have been forged/edited by Huffman. However repeated request to them to substantiate their allegations by demonstrating any possible alterations on the werewolves site which can be easily cross checked by USENET archives like google groups, have been ignored by them. And Huffman has claimed that the citings are all from Derek Smart's USENET postings.
So we need a arbitration ruling regarding whether the inclusion of the prominent werewolves site in the wiki biography as a external link would contravene the WP:BLP.
2. Whether Smart's own USENET postings can be cited in his biography to substantiate claims. 
This has arisen due to the fact that Smart singns his official communiques with a Ph.D. Smart has never substantiated his claims of a Ph.D by offering even the name of the institution which granted him the doctorate, and there are USENET discussions regarding this aspect as well. Smart subsequatly signed as Derek Smart Ph.D (non acredited). However current communiques show that he still signs as "Derek Smart Ph.D". It is my consideration that the Ph.D controversy is noteworthy enough to be cited in his bio (as possible academic fraud is a serious offense).
We need arbitration is Derek Smart's own USENET postings as verified by his singature and the headers which contain the USENET server etc can be used as cites in his bio. This is mainly due to the fact that by nature Smart's reason for prominence is his contribution to the mamoth USENET flame war, and a special case  should be made in his case.
3. What commentrary critical of Smart should be permitted. 
WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr have been repeatedly removing cited commentrary critical of Smart claiming WP:BLP violations without substantiating under which clause the said inclusions violate WP:BLP. 
Due to Smart's controversial nature commentrary critical of him which are properly cited should be included in his bio, so we need arbitration with regard to what commentrary critical of Smart is permissible to be included in his bio, and what is not, and what are the reliable sites to cite from/ 
The Final solution IMHO would be coming to a consensus regarding the above mentioned key facts, followed by vigorous supervision by admins, permanent semi protection of both the article and its talk page,  and prompt banning of SPA's who violate the said consensus guidlines.Kerr avon 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Kerr avon 

message: I am an uninvolved third party.  To the best of my knowledge, I had never even read this article until today and certainly have no memory of ever having edited it.  However, with more than 25,000 edits, I may have done.  I am here as an outsider.
Note that Derek Smart has been the subject of numerous flame wars over the course of months and years.  I believe initially usenet was the focus of these flame wars.  This has been going back a good ten years or so.  I believe it accurate to state that Smart himself would admit to being an active participant in these flame wars.
From my knowledge of the situation, Swatjester's summary thus far is accurate and I concur that a request for arbitration is a good idea at this point.  Specifically, however, I want to emphasize that there is no direct evidence that Smart himself has participated, either directly or via a meatpuppet, in editing this article.  However, this is at the very least possible.  It is worth considering whether or not Smart should be allowed to edit this article or others about his products.  I believe this to be inappropriate as he is not a neutral third party.  --Yamla 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Yamla 

message: Just to stick my $0.02 in, I did the same as Steel, reviewed the contribuitons of User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP, User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num, and came to exactly the same conclusion: they can justly be considered to be the same person.  As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart... As with Langan, I think we can draw the necessary inference here. 
If the case is accepted I would like to propose a temporary injunction banning the above accounts and credibly diagnosed sockpuppets from the article, since it's pretty much impossible for anybody to do any kind of cleanup on it while they are active.  Guy (Help!) 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:JzG]] 

message: I assume good faith in Supreme Cmdr's statement, "I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases." From this I deduce that Supreme Cmdr is either clairvoyant or telepathic, since otherwise he could not state with such certainty that which only Derek Smart himself could truly know. Presumably any other resemblance between the opinions and writings of these two different people is also due to such a telepathic link. I ask ArbCom to give this explanation (as an alternative to sockpuppetry) all the consideration it deserves. – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:11, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supreme Cmdr adds, in a comment to me above,"The mere fact that Derek Smart would hide under and alias isn't even something worth debating about because thats the whole reason why he is so notorious. He has always said that he hides in plain sight or somesuch."Well. That appears to be an admission. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:53, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to assume Supreme Cmdr must be Derek just because he appears to know a lot about Derek. While it's possible perhaps even likely, it's also possible he's a friend, relative or simply someone who has an unhealthy interest in Derek. Whatever the case, it's a bit silly IMHO to suggest that Supreme Cmdr must be a clairvoyant because of the statement quoted. It sounds to me that what he's saying is that in his/her apparently strongly informed opinion, Derek Smart does not edit as anon or hide under aliases. This is not being clairoyant but simply stating that he or she does not believe Derek Smart would hide under an alias. Nil Einne 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't expect a clever, skilled person who does use anonymity or aliases to proclaim the fact, because that could defeat the purpose. (There are people who do admit such things to others, for various reasons, but I don't see any hint of such reasons here.) So I can't assert, with anything like SC's certainty, that anyone, other than myself or someone I watch over every minute, is not doing X, Y, or Z on the 'Net, if they've got the ability to do so. I can say it of myself... but that cannot give you any such certainty that I'm telling the truth. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:38, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved user [[User:SAJordan|SAJordan]] 

message: I haven't reviewed the case in depth but from what I've seen it's possible that one or more of the users involved may be Derek Smart. Also, it looks to me like they've probably gone to far and not handled various things well. However whatever the outcome of this case, I think it's important that the committee make some points clear. Reading the comments of some people involved at various places, there appears to be a misunderstanding of BLP. While BLP may have originally arisen out of concerns of libel, my understanding of the policy is that it's no longer solely concerned with libel. Rather, it's about the idea that it's extremely important to strictly uphold wikipedia standards given the amount of hurt that can be cause to living individuals if we don't, regardless of whether libel is of concern. (Remember the "do no harm provision")
For this reason, we protect the privacy of non-public inviduals. We also require reliable sources strictly. Also, and this is one thing a lot of people involved don't seem to get, we refrain from speculating or offering opinions about living people on talk pages. Wikipedia is not a forum. If your information cannot go into the article, you generally shouldn't be talking about it in the talk page either. (This is always the case but is doublt so in BLPs, especially of non-public people.) What this means is that if you don't have a reliable source for some information, you generally shouldn't include it in the talk page either. This makes enlisting the help of others to find a reliable source more difficult but it an unavoidable consequence. (i.e. don't say, well I think this is true, can someone find a source for it.) Similarly, if the information is non-noteable especially when the individual is not considered a public figure, you shouldn't be talking or mentioning it in the talk page.
We all do this sometimes, I'm sure I have. But other people are fully entitled to remove it from the talk page. When people do remove such comments/information from the talk page, it is essential editors accept that as a good thing rather then getting into a huff or defensive. To be clear, this doesn't mean editors have the right to remove anything they disagree with from the talk page or that editors removing comments are always right. But unsourced speculation & non-noteable information of living people, especially  when this is likely to cause harm should usually go. Even more so when these people aren't public figures (although Derek Smart is a semi-public figure IMHO). It's also important to remember that BLP applies to all living people. If you're talking about Derek Smart's marriages & divorces, remember there are other people (wives & perhaps children) who also need to be considered to some degree. Obviously this doesn't mean we necessarily censor information to protect others involved. I'm simply trying to say although Derek (or whoever) may be a semi-public figure, it's arguable if his wives or children are so there's no carte-blanche to let your imaginations run wild (as we tend to allow a little more leeway with public figures, especially politicians)
To try and clarify what I'm trying to say, I draw attention to 2 specific cases. In Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal/Archive 2, the name of the accuser was first mentioned by one or two radio hosts. The fact that this was the correct name was possibly confirmed by some paper (which didn't publish the name). Regardless, it was felt by several people that publishing this name on wikipedia was not justifiable at the time. Someone removed said name from the talk page. IMHO this was completely justified as would have been removing links to sites which publish said name. This name has now been published in other sources and so can be included in the article, but this doesn't change the fact that it was right to remove any mention of the name from the talk page. Obviously discussing whether the fact that a name hadd been mentioned in the radio show was acceptable, just not publishing the name. N.B. While it's possible that libel issues could have arisen here, IMHO the primary reason to remove them was because of the harm it could cause to have it there, not because of libel.
The second case I'm a bit more hestitant do draw attention to but it is Talk:2006 Ipswich murder investigation#the myspace FOUND. In this case, I removed a link to a mirror of the former suspect's myspace page. Given that there was clearly a consensus not to include it in the article, and this was while he was still a suspect, I felt there was no justification for it to remain in the talk page anymore especially after he'd been released. Note that I'm not saying that this link shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. Obviously you need the link to ask if it should be included. But once the discussion is concluded, if having the link does more harm then good, it should be removed.
So in conclusion, I hope that editors and arbitators don't allow whatever wrongs may have been commited in this case to cloud the fact that removing talk page comments is allowed under BLP, and should be done in a number of instances regardless of whether the issue of libel arises. Specifically, I hope that the arbitrators re-affirm the principles of BLP whatever their decision on the specific behaviour of individuals in this case. '
Nil Einne 17:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved user [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 

message: Moved from the main RfAr case by the Clerk 
The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.  
I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case.  Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article?  Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?  
In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account.  A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit).  Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart and sometimes not.  In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP.  I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.".  The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al. 
Which leads me to my request for clarification.  Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done.  It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of WP:SPA is that User:Mael-Num is an SPA. Charles Matthews 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision states that Mael-Num was an SPA, and this appears to have been true as of the time that the decision was initially drafted. By the time the case was closed and the decision finalized, and certainly as of today, Mael-Num had diversified his editing activity and certainly is not an SPA with respect to the Derrick Smart article as of today. Whether the decision should be updated to reflect such changed circumstances, or supplemented with a note that administrator judgment should be used in determining SPA status for purposes of applying the remedy, is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would again encourage admins, in particular, to apply 'judgement and discretion' here. There is no need to apply the remedy passed according to the letter. Charles Matthews 13:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification of [[Derek Smart]] case

message: Bill Huffman (the account by that name and the person behind it) is prohibited from editing the Derek Smart article, including the talk page.
==== Statement by Cla68 ====
Finding #5 from the Derek Smart case found that Bill Huffman was operating an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart and editing the talk page of the Smart article under a Wikipedia account of the same name.  On the Derek Smart talk page, the Huffman account has made, as recently as a few days ago, suggestions on article content which has been discussed by other editors.
It came to light a few weeks ago that this same editor was operating an undisclosed alternate account, TallMagic.  Both accounts have edited the same article.  TallMagic disputed (and here) the attempts at finding fault with his use of two accounts.  Administrator Atama asked TallMagic to stop using the Huffman account, which TallMagic refused to do, instead, announcing that he was "retiring" both accounts.  The Bill Huffman account, however, began editing again on 18 April, specifically targetting the Derek Smart article.  He has been evasive when asked to explain why he is doing so.
I'm not sure why the Committee did not enact a remedy in the case with regards to this editor.  It seems to me that someone who is operating an harrassment campaign off-wiki against someone should not be allowed to edit that person's Wikipedia BLP, including the talk page.  I suspect that the person wants Derek Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia bio, as he has the same name prominently displayed on the front page of the off-wiki attack site .  The fact that the editor "retired" the TallMagic account yet kept the original account which is now used solely for the Derek Smart article shows that this person is really only here for one purpose, to use Wikipedia as part of his personal campaign against Derek Smart.  I request that ArbCom consider adding a remedy to this case to resolve this issue.
:27 Apr 2010 followup:  Based on a suggestion by Huffman on the Derek Smart talk page, someone just implemented a change in the article text.  So, Mr. Huffman, who runs an off-wiki attack site on Smart under the same name, is influencing the content of the Wikipedia article on the target of his campaign. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Steve Smith:  Well, Huffman makes it fairly clear here and here that he has a personal interest in, a derogatory opinion of, and long running dispute with, Derek Smart.  I believe Huffman knows he would be banned fairly quickly if he touched the Smart article text himself because his off-wiki, apparently long-running war with Smart is very public.  So, Huffman gets around this by restricting himself to the talk page and making suggestions for others to implement, which they appear to do.  As I said before, I think Huffman wants Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia article.  There is definitely a long-running dispute between the two.  See these comments beginning in 2006:   . Here, Huffman states that he has no interest in even discussing the contents of the article.  That, based on his editing since that time, appears to be untrue.  Huffman does appear to be displaying some negative POV in this article suggestion from last year. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have noticed this before about the "Diploma Mill" connection.  On Huffman's off-wiki attack site, he devotes a lot of space to what he says is Ph.D. fraud by Derek Smart.  The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU).  Sub-pages on Huffman's website print what he says are emails in which Huffman and Smart argue over the university and the degree.  The history of the WNU article shows editing by Huffman in 2007 and then what appears to be more than a hundred subsequent edits by TallMagic .  The editing history of Huffman and TallMagic at that article shows efforts by those accounts to ensure that that article contains negative information on that school.  TallMagic appears to editwar frequently with IP editors who try to remove at least some of the negative information.  So, the off-wiki battle going on between these two people appears to have extended from just the Smart article to at least one other article.  Thus, it might be a good idea if TallMagic and Huffman not edit the WNU article either. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: On my talk page, Cla68 asked: "I just noticed that, in addition to continuing his battle with Derek Smart in Smart's BLP, both accounts were very active in the related Warren National University (WNU) article.  ...  The WNU article's history shows that you were also heavily involved in editing that article at the same time.  Were you unaware that Huffman/TallMagic was editing that article apparently as part of a long-running, off-wiki feud between himself and Derek Smart?" My answer is "No". I am not interested in the off-wiki feud, nor in determining whether there is/was a relationship between WNU and the off-wiki feud. Moreover, since WNU went out of business, there is now little activity in editing the WNU article. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *Steve Smith asked a question (in passing) regarding the relevance of the topic of unaccredited educational institutions. They are discussed here only because the TallMagic account focused on that topic, was abandoned because it was "outed," and now is blocked as a sockpuppet. As someone who is continuing to watch those articles, I have a bit of concern that the blocked status of the TallMagic account will be cited by SPA contributors to discredit TallMagic's past  contributions. Considering that the TallMagic account was used to protect the user's privacy for work on a certain topic, and thus falls in the category of legitimate uses of a second account, I would appreciate it if the TallMagic account were not identified as being blocked for sockpuppetry. This may seem unlikely, since the block notice only shows up on the contributions page and not also on the user page or user talk page, but I believe that the persistent defenders of various unaccredited institutions will find it and make use of it. Since the user has renounced the account, there's probably no harm in its being blocked, but I'd personally prefer to see a milder notice regarding the reasons for its blocked status. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: This WNU accusation is highly problematic, in my opinion. If he didn't hear the false story from someone else then he must have just made it up himself. In Cla68's campaign he frequently mischaracterized me and my edits. I believe that the WNU accusation is just a further demonstration that Cla68 appears to obfuscate and twist the truth in his dealings with me. He made false claims about me involving WNU. The old name for WNU was Kennedy Western University. I did find two places on the website where the initials of KWU were found.  Neither place is anyone saying that Derek Smart had a degree from there. No place on the website was there ever any such thing. Here's archive.org copies of the Flame War Follies website and I invite Cla68 to find the "emails" there that he claimed he found on the website. He won't be able to do it because they never existed. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendment 1

message: Finding #5 from the Derek Smart case found that Bill Huffman was operating an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart and editing the talk page of the Smart article under a Wikipedia account of the same name.  On the Derek Smart talk page, the Huffman account has made, as recently as a few days ago, suggestions on article content which has been discussed by other editors.
It came to light a few weeks ago that this same editor was operating an undisclosed alternate account, TallMagic.  Both accounts have edited the same article.  TallMagic disputed (and here) the attempts at finding fault with his use of two accounts.  Administrator Atama asked TallMagic to stop using the Huffman account, which TallMagic refused to do, instead, announcing that he was "retiring" both accounts.  The Bill Huffman account, however, began editing again on 18 April, specifically targetting the Derek Smart article.  He has been evasive when asked to explain why he is doing so.
I'm not sure why the Committee did not enact a remedy in the case with regards to this editor.  It seems to me that someone who is operating an harrassment campaign off-wiki against someone should not be allowed to edit that person's Wikipedia BLP, including the talk page.  I suspect that the person wants Derek Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia bio, as he has the same name prominently displayed on the front page of the off-wiki attack site .  The fact that the editor "retired" the TallMagic account yet kept the original account which is now used solely for the Derek Smart article shows that this person is really only here for one purpose, to use Wikipedia as part of his personal campaign against Derek Smart.  I request that ArbCom consider adding a remedy to this case to resolve this issue.
:27 Apr 2010 followup:  Based on a suggestion by Huffman on the Derek Smart talk page, someone just implemented a change in the article text.  So, Mr. Huffman, who runs an off-wiki attack site on Smart under the same name, is influencing the content of the Wikipedia article on the target of his campaign. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Steve Smith:  Well, Huffman makes it fairly clear here and here that he has a personal interest in, a derogatory opinion of, and long running dispute with, Derek Smart.  I believe Huffman knows he would be banned fairly quickly if he touched the Smart article text himself because his off-wiki, apparently long-running war with Smart is very public.  So, Huffman gets around this by restricting himself to the talk page and making suggestions for others to implement, which they appear to do.  As I said before, I think Huffman wants Smart to know that he is messing with his Wikipedia article.  There is definitely a long-running dispute between the two.  See these comments beginning in 2006:   . Here, Huffman states that he has no interest in even discussing the contents of the article.  That, based on his editing since that time, appears to be untrue.  Huffman does appear to be displaying some negative POV in this article suggestion from last year. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have noticed this before about the "Diploma Mill" connection.  On Huffman's off-wiki attack site, he devotes a lot of space to what he says is Ph.D. fraud by Derek Smart.  The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU).  Sub-pages on Huffman's website print what he says are emails in which Huffman and Smart argue over the university and the degree.  The history of the WNU article shows editing by Huffman in 2007 and then what appears to be more than a hundred subsequent edits by TallMagic .  The editing history of Huffman and TallMagic at that article shows efforts by those accounts to ensure that that article contains negative information on that school.  TallMagic appears to editwar frequently with IP editors who try to remove at least some of the negative information.  So, the off-wiki battle going on between these two people appears to have extended from just the Smart article to at least one other article.  Thus, it might be a good idea if TallMagic and Huffman not edit the WNU article either. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Cla68 

message: I've started editing Wikipedia some time ago, simply because I knew of Derek Smart, was surprised there was an article on him, and got interested in watching the article grow.  I am not terribly Wikipedia savvy, and let it be known though I have been trying to acquaint myself with policy properly enough to weigh in on things, my opinion should be taken as that of an inexperienced editor.
The original arbitration did mention Bill Huffman, and as I recall found no reason to remedy.  It is perfectly within reason and within WP:COI for someone who is directly involved with a subject to post strictly on the talk page, so long as they are careful as per 'close relationships'.  To this end, Bill Huffman has never edited the article, has always seemed to give helpful edits, and remained calm in an extremely checkered history of vicious personal attacks by various editors.  He is not a troubling force on that page, and anyone examining the history of the page is likely to see that for themselves.
I find myself bothered that this remedy is even being proposed, and I would like to note that conflict of interest was spoken to here, and seemed to find nothing in this regard.  Editing a talk page with content suggestions does not seem to be something to discourage.  Certainly not something that should be punished.  These suggestions, it should be said, were not done disruptively to any measure that I can detect.  His suggestions on the talk page were often for additions that, as someone who has had an extensive history with the BLP article's subject, he considered to be useful.  Not all of his suggestions were taken, but a rejected idea never even seemed to cause him the slightest distress.
I feel bad in that I've been speaking with Atama, with regards to Bill Huffman, and now it seems even after he finished conversing with me (he banned what I thought to be a legitimate sock of Huffman and I made a case on the sock's talk page and on Atama's page, later inviting JzG to review if he ever had time), and now Atama's been called in anyway.  My sympathies for your being drawn back in, Atama.
In summation, I don't see a case to be made, here.  But though I am an inexperienced editor, I am also likely one of the few around that knows of the article subject, and some of the long-standing conversations throughout the history of the article.  OH, no, there is one thing more.  Is it possible to add another amendment that the article in question be reviewed by uninvolved editors?  It's hard to get interest, but there has been a NPOV tag up for quite some time, there are also some simple errors, and if this article is truly non-neutral (this figure, from what I have seen, is often negatively regarded, however I'm loathe to judge in on WP:Weight) then some help to bring it up to speed would be ideal.
Addendum - In reading the 'evasive' link Cla68 posted, the final post in there seems to be from TallMagic as of this posting and it seems to be a clear explanation and not an evasion.  A study of the history of the article will cause one to note that Derek Smart does indeed know that Bill Huffman edits the article, without any speculation required. After the ArbCom remedy, Derek Smart entered the page with his personal name, and in part of a long comment, was banned owing to legal threats.  Prior to that, his surrogates, IP editors with close personal knowledge and singular interest in the article, were causing disruption on the page by removing all material critical of the article's subject.   Through all of this, even while conflict of interest concerns were raised, Bill Huffman's editing patterns were often praised..
Addendum 2 - Something I'd forgotten.  Cla68 also requested a personal review of Bill Huffman's activities with Atama.  This request seems to have come the day before the final deletion of a sockpuppet investigation in which Bill Huffman was found with no case to answer. In the same day as Cla68's aforementioned request to Atama, he also requested BLP noticeboard assistance which found no action to be required.  Hopefully this might speak to the level of light that has been shining here, as this was also a topic of the original arbcom.  I would invite that this is certainly not an unknown situation, nor one that has not been thoroughly considered, in my estimation.
Response to Steve Smith - I never nominated the article for deletion personally, because I believe the strictest interpretation places the Derek Smart article within the bounds of wp:notability.  There is disagreement on that, however.  It is possible that much attention ON the article came after a long, protracted campaign from Derek Smart surrogates to control the information in the article.  This lead to pushback in which people who weren't overly aware of the article continued to watch it after becoming bothered by the potentially controlling and/or demanding nature of the Derek Smart surrogates, or by insults received while trying to work with other editors toward a neutral article. (I can get newer diffs if it matters for any reason, I just went to the oldest archive because I remember it being small and thus easier to look through).
The problem now is that, it seems, very few editors who know of Derek Smart actually come to wikipedia.  Therefore it's possible that after the edit warring died down, the interest in furthering the article OR investigating its notability died with it.  Sadly, I can make very little time for wikipedia.  I have little enough time that I never even made an account, and this here might be the most effort I've effort spent here thus far!  I'm a Derek Smart hobbyist, you might say.  There is something about what seems to be an extreme vitriol that he displays toward any negative views that there might be of him, and the unabashed nature with which he seems to present that vitriol, that keeps him in my mind.  But that's only enough for me to read an article on him if one pops up.  No, as for wikipedia I think watching this article move toward NPOV has been a really impressive thing to behold.  
There are times when I believed that the surrogates would be too omnipresent and too determined to allow work to continue, but the structure of wikipedia prevailed.  The Derek Smart article survived improper edits from both extremes (and editors adding bad information to the article were not limited solely to surrogates or to the 'pro-smart' point of view, the "Derek Smart stinks"-mindset editors only seemed to die down faster once people got more seriously involved in the article, they were present).  That may be a more complete reason as to why I've never nominated it for deletion, the wikipedia process has convinced me that the article can be brought to excellence through time and perseverance.
With regards to point of view. In regards to Cla68's assertion that Bill Huffman's editing patterns are only an attempt to avoid banning.  I see no reason to assume that simply because Bill Huffman took a very careful stance, and in doing so chose not to edit the article, it should be interpreted as an attempt to 'get around' being banned.  I think this is an incorrect assumption because it would conceivably hinge on an intention to cause problematic, ban-worthy edits.  Based on Cla68's reply to Steve Smith the contention here seems to be straightforward.  Is Bill Huffman's point of view inherently problematic enough that he should be banned from editing.
One of the first edits I saw once I started looking into this was Cla68 stating that wikipedia should not care if people are deceived by diploma mills (the edited section for this diff is not the pertinent point).  This is surely true if we are editing on opinion, and not sources, but apparently that was not the case.  I invite that Cla68 may be seeking remedies so actively, because he may feel that the situation is analogous to another situation.  Cla68 took exception to the sources being used to discredit diploma mills with an analogy that speaks to another of his interests, climate change.  I feel this may be important because point of view is at the forefront of this discussion.  And I intend to present evidence that Cla68 might not support his action against Bill Huffman if it was climate change skepticism that Bill Huffman was editing about.  This may help the council understand the points of view at play.
Firstly, it would seem that Cla68's perceptions of editing may be colored by the belief that editors with a point of view are a causal factor, or symptomatic of, disruptive or non-neutral editing.  This may be part of a belief that editors with a point of view will actively try to exclude material they don't agree with.  It should be noted that in a prior edit for that diff, a commenting editor did clearly say he was referring to extreme views being put in their proper place, not being omitted.
In fact, he might believe that those with a strong point of view are trying to link their opponents with holocaust denialists and the edit summary may indicate that he considers his perception to be a large, unspoken truth.  That edit did not stand.  All of this might also be considered against what seems to be a strong point of view that Cla68 holds. However he does not recuse himself from editing articles within that scope of interest, climate change, despite feeling that Bill Huffman should be banned for a perceived negative point of view regarding Derek Smart.  This is, of course, not to argue that Cla68 should recuse himself.  But I want invite this for the consideration of the committee, while you review another action that Cla68 wants to bring in regards to Bill Huffman.
It seems that Cla68 himself would seem to disagree with the motion brought before us, if it were to apply to him.  Bill Huffman can be seen cooperating and collaborating with other editors.  Though he may be sardonic at times, reviews will likely show that when his language is more barbed, it is less inflammatory than the comments given to him, though I did not check these specific examples to verify.
Bill Huffman may have a negative view toward Derek Smart, as Cla68 has a negative view of the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the manner in which Bill Huffman edits (restricting himself to the talk page) and the edits themselves show, in my opinion, that Cla68 is right when he said point of view doesn't matter.  And if it doesn't matter, then the reason Cla68 has for bringing this motion before the council is equally moot.  I understand that Bill Huffman stated that he was at one time uninterested in the article but as he said, and as I believe myself as well, the article grew better despite challenges, and it became interesting to watch that unfold.  Change of opinion does not necessitate disingenuous motives.  And there is another factor that Cla68 doesn't seem to note.  Cla68 stated that Bill Huffman influences the article by making suggestions which others appear to implement.  That means others agree with those opinions upon review, which also means that Bill Huffman is only acting as a valuable source of information that others sometimes find useful for the sake of the article.
I've been going back and fourth trying to figure out why this has been pursued so actively.  I believe now that I may have finally reached understanding as to the nature of this series of actions, though perhaps it's not as interesting as the possibility that Bill Huffman is a crusader bent on harming a BLP work, or that Cla68 may have gotten orders to start this campaign on behalf of diploma mill operators.  Cla68 may believe that Bill Huffman editing this page is indicative of problematic editing becoming systemic, as he seems to believe happens in other areas.  However, though I am not trying to disagree with him in regards to climate change, I think that such a passionate sense of purpose is not well placed in regards to the Derek Smart article.  Reading Bill Huffman's summary, Cla68 may have let things go too far, and thus seems to have continued to forum shop when he did not receive the answer he preferred.  By the way in reading that article on canvassing, the guideline notes the importance of linking to previous discussions, however Cla68 did not disclose to Atama that there was an SPI investigation closing when he asked for Bill Huffman to be banned for what seems to be the same reasons.  Furthermore he did not disclose here, others did, that he has been seeking opinions against Bill Huffman's editing patterns, on the COI noticeboard and elsewhere, with what appears to be quite limited success. 
Cla68 remains convinced despite so many disagreeing with him.  Even Atama, who banned Bill Huffman only because he didn't seem to agree with Bill Huffman's use of an unlinked alternate account for the sake of privacy, does not agree with Cla68's conclusions here.  Still, Cla68 is so strongly convinced that Bill Huffman must be problematic, that he seeks a blanket ban.  I think a few steps back may be all that is required to see the full picture.  There may not be intrigue or maliciousness, it may not be a page turner, but it seems straightforward.  
Comment to Steve Smith.  I think Bill Huffman's comments about unaccredited institutions are not because of a desire to request amendment for them, but rather because being currently banned for being a sockpuppet, Tallmagic cannot do his previous editing which was intended to keep disruptive IP's from damaging the neutrality of the article.  He may not be able to use that account now but it might be helpful to address concerns about whether Bill Huffman's behavior was legitimate, and whether Cla68's still ongoing press to further block Bill Huffman from editing is considered acceptable or disruptive.   Perhaps a clarification, is reviewing Bill Huffman's banning or Cla68's actions something that can be considered here within this specific issue because it has arrived here, or must it be dealt with in a separate venue?
Sorry for adding so much material!  WNU comment  Cla68 mentions adding negative material regarding the WNU article.  I can't speak to the article, but I do note that Cla68 mentions a negative tone and makes no comment as to whether the negative material is proper for the article.  72.192.46.9 (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by 72.192.46.9 

message: I have to admit that this is the first time since I've become an administrator that I've been so conflicted. I've reviewed my feelings, opinions, and behavior throughout the entire incident that Cla68 referred to above, and while I don't feel that I've made any drastic mistakes, I believe that from here on out I would like to avoid any and all use of the tools against Bill Huffman or any of his alternate accounts. I'll try to recap what I've done and my point of view.
My involvement with this began at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where I responded to a complaint made by Cla68 regarding the involvement of TallMagic and others in articles related to "diploma mills". I didn't feel that there was a COI (see my opinion ), and I still don't feel that there was one. My biggest concern at the time was what I thought was outing of another editor in an attempt to prove a COI, which is an all-too-common problem at that noticeboard. I ) that outing an editor in pursuit of a COI case is not acceptable. At the time, I had thought that Bill had abandoned his old account and created a new one to preserve his real identity, and had only outed himself by accident. The discussion then moved to my talk page, which I thought was appropriate due to the privacy concerns in this case.
On my talk page, I  TallMagic against sockpuppet accusations, insisting that the Bill Huffman account had been retired, the TallMagic account took over, and there was no other violation of WP:SOCK. I truly believed that at the time, but Cla68 insisted that the Bill Huffman account was still active, and TallMagic threatened to bring the issue to ANI to complain about harassment. That didn't seem like a good idea at the time, especially for an editor concerned about his privacy, and tried to , that the old Bill Huffman account be completely abandoned, and perhaps Cla68 would leave him alone. That was very poorly-received, and I was accused of trying to "". After that, I was more insistent with TallMagic and  to not escalate this too much because issues of privacy can only properly be handled in private locations, and taking everything to ANI would be counter-productive. Despite my requests, it did spill over into the noticeboard.
I reluctantly participated in the ANI discussion, you can see my first comment  where I tried to be circumspect for privacy reasons, as I still had concerns about outing, despite the fact that TallMagic seemed to be voluntarily disclosing the identity by posting such a report. But by the time I posted my  I felt that such a concern was moot, since the connection was clearly made by other editors already, in such a public place, as I was afraid would happen. That was the point at which I questioned whether TallMagic really cared about privacy, and asked why he needed to keep his old account. TallMagic refused to explain why he needed the other account, and continued his outing complaint (while outing himself). That was the point in which I said that I'd  trying to defend him, since he was uncooperative, and also pointed out that he'd used his two accounts to edit the same article (on almost the same day) in clear violation of WP:ILLEGIT, and in my next comment declared that I just  anymore.
At TallMagic's talk page I've left a number of messages, but the specifics don't matter, except that I continued to declare that I no longer thought that TallMagic/Bill's appeal that he needed multiple accounts for privacy reasons were sincere, and that I had no interest in interacting with him any longer (either in favor or against him). I did make one exception to that, however. TallMagic had , but then Cla68  that Bill was continuing to edit Wikipedia. At that point I blocked TallMagic, since I could no longer trust what he said, and felt that it would prevent future sockpuppetry. That may or may not have been wise, I've questioned myself on that move and if anyone reverses the block I won't object. If nothing else, if the TallMagic account is specifically retired, it is probably moot.
I apologize for rambling. I'd really rather forget any of this, but I thought it would only be responsible to make a comment here and provide some background from my perspective. I'm not proud about anything that happened, as I feel like I made sincere attempts to help two editors and failed miserably. I don't have a lot of opinion with Bill's editing of the Derek Smart page specifically, and don't want to get involved with that personally considering the history I have with the editor. -- Atama頭 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Atama 

message: Background: I have (or, i should say, had) a longstanding and positive "relationship" with TallMagic, as we have interacted extensively on articles about diploma mills, educational accreditation, and related topics. I don't know much of anything about Derek Smart, but I see no indication that the user's editing of Talk:Derek Smart violated either Wikipedia policy or the remedy in this arbitration case. 
Considering (1) the large sums of money that some unscrupulous people make from diploma mills and (2) the fact that most diploma mill business comes via the internet, it's hardly surprising to me if diploma mill operators are determined to control the content of Wikipedia articles about their operations. I've seen evidence that diploma mill operators can successfully intimidate governments and publishers into retracting negative statements about them, and I fully expect that they could make life very miserable for Wikipedians who are brave enough to edit diploma mill articles under their real names. With that background, I find it entirely logical that after some bad experiences as a result of editing diploma mill articles under his real name, the user created the TallMagic account as a main account to protect his privacy -- a legitimate application of WP:SOCK#LEGIT -- while continuing to use the real-name account solely to interact with Wikipedians regarding topics strongly associated with his real name (mainly the topic of Derek Smart). It appeared to me that -- Atama's efforts at "sanitization" notwithstanding --  Cla68's initial "outing" efforts permanently damaged the privacy of the "TallMagic" account, giving him sound reasons to abandon that account. Keeping the TallMagic account and abandoning the real name account (as was suggested) would have made no sense, since the TallMagic account could no longer protect his privacy. It pains me to see the continued "piling on" that the user has experienced after he announced the retirement of the TallMagic account. I believe that his use of two accounts was entirely legitimate (within the scope of WP:SOCK#LEGIT), that his decision to abandon the TallMagic account instead of the real-name account was entirely understandable, and that the labeling of the TallMagic account as a "Blocked Sockpuppet" added a major insult to the injury already suffered by a good and reliable Wikipedia contributor. I don't see any good reason for slapping an additional ban on the real-name account, as Cla68 now proposes. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On my talk page, Cla68 asked: "I just noticed that, in addition to continuing his battle with Derek Smart in Smart's BLP, both accounts were very active in the related Warren National University (WNU) article.  ...  The WNU article's history shows that you were also heavily involved in editing that article at the same time.  Were you unaware that Huffman/TallMagic was editing that article apparently as part of a long-running, off-wiki feud between himself and Derek Smart?" My answer is "No". I am not interested in the off-wiki feud, nor in determining whether there is/was a relationship between WNU and the off-wiki feud. Moreover, since WNU went out of business, there is now little activity in editing the WNU article. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *Steve Smith asked a question (in passing) regarding the relevance of the topic of unaccredited educational institutions. They are discussed here only because the TallMagic account focused on that topic, was abandoned because it was "outed," and now is blocked as a sockpuppet. As someone who is continuing to watch those articles, I have a bit of concern that the blocked status of the TallMagic account will be cited by SPA contributors to discredit TallMagic's past  contributions. Considering that the TallMagic account was used to protect the user's privacy for work on a certain topic, and thus falls in the category of legitimate uses of a second account, I would appreciate it if the TallMagic account were not identified as being blocked for sockpuppetry. This may seem unlikely, since the block notice only shows up on the contributions page and not also on the user page or user talk page, but I believe that the persistent defenders of various unaccredited institutions will find it and make use of it. Since the user has renounced the account, there's probably no harm in its being blocked, but I'd personally prefer to see a milder notice regarding the reasons for its blocked status. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Orlady

message: Accusation of operating a SOCK account: I started editing Wikipedia using this account, user:Bill Huffman. After getting some threats in my home email from some apparently unhappy diploma mill owners I decided to create another account so that I would be able to safely continue editing Wikipedia articles like diploma mills, educational accreditation, and related topics as mentioned by Orlady. I decided that it would be best to continue editing the Timothy Baymon article with this account because a wp:SPA account that was likely Timothy Baymon or a meatpuppet threatened this Bill Huffman account. I thought it could be interpreted as deceitful if I started editing that article with my new account. I thought that trying to edit talk:Derek Smart with another account would be completely unreasonable from the point of view that I wouldn't be able to disclose my potential biases to other editors on the talk page without outing my new account. I was also concerned about keeping my TallMagic account separate from other people that might be watching the article that had participated in the Derek Smart Flame Wars on Usenet. So anyway, I posted on the BLP notice board and got another editor to fix the Timothy Baymon article so that I would no longer be a focus of Timothy Baymon or his meat puppet. My research of wp:SOCK seemed to indicate to me that this was all perfectly within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In particular, the Privacy paragraph at wp:SOCK#LEGIT seemed to allow this kind of use. Regarding the accusation of editing the same article with two accounts, on February 21, 2009 I made my last edit on Timothy Baymon or the talk page using User:Bill Huffman. On February 22, 2009 I accidentally edited the article with my TallMagic account instead of the Bill Huffman account. The next edit by anyone in the article was in June. This February edit was the first edit to Timothy Baymon with the TallMagic account and I never edited the article again with the Bill Huffman account after that. I assert that it should be obvious that I was not trying to be deceitful or disruptive regarding this incident on Timothy Baymon. I also believe that the continued use of this old Bill Huffman account was legitimate and if I've misunderstood the policy and it was not legitimate then there was no attempt on my part to be deceptive, deceitful, disruptive, or dishonest.
Accusation that I said I would retire both accounts: This is just not true. Exactly what I said was, "I will retire my TallMagic account after this ANI. It is no longer usable thanks to Cla68 anyway. I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps the rare addition to one talk page."
Accusation by implication that I have ever pushed an anti-Derek Smart point of view on talk:Derek Smart: My goal when editing on talk:Derek Smart (or any article) has always been making the best article possible and strictly following Wikipedia Guidelines. To support this assertion I first point out that Cla68 has neglected to point out any of my edits to try to support his false accusation. Second I point out that Thatcher in January 2007 said, "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.)". Third, I point out that I let editors know on talk:Derek Smart when anything notable positive or negative is made public. The most recent example of positive information being on March 13, 2010 I posted this suggestion to add positive information . Fourth, just look at the talk page and make up your own mind.
My requests to the admins who read this: 
#I request that the User:TallMagic account be unblocked. Not because I wish to use it to edit article space, that will never happen. I make this request because I believe that this is a case of wp:SOCK#LEGIT. I also feel that it is insulting to my past contributions to Wikipedia and to me personally to block the account. If certain fans of certain diploma mills finds out about this then it will likely be used as a jumping off point for spreading more insults and lies against me. For example see an example of such an attack against me. 
#I also request that Cla68 be told that he has to leave me alone. I cannot imagine ever being tempted to edit Wikipedia articles again as long as I have to worry about Cla68 renewing his harassment. I do not know why  Cla68 started what I consider a harassment campaign. Here's an abbreviated history in chronological order
##Outing and  a COI
##When Cla68 was told outing was not allowed, he said he was allowed to out me because this was a COI and also because my original account was a real name account. Does Cla68 not understand the outing policy? Perhaps, but he failed an RfA because of an outing incident he was apparently involved with and so it seems more likely to me that he really was more familiar with the outing policy than he pretended. The COI was closed with consensus in my favor.
##Cla68 filed a SPI against me Which is fine but it is closed and Cla68 can't seem to accept the consensus, just like he can't seem to accept the COI consensus. He continues lobbying with various admins that I be punished. It seems in large part because he was still determined to further out my TallMagic account. The SPI was closed with consensus in my favor.
##Cla68 continued claiming that he was allowed to out me even after multiple warnings from multiple admins. He then posted this on user_talk:TallMagic page to apparently indirectly associate the real name Bill Huffman with TallMagic. 
###(To TallMagic) Your accusation of "harrassment" on my talk page cheapens the term and experiences of those who have been real victims of harrassment, like this guy. This attack website on Derek Smart lists "Bill Huffman" as the site's owner. An account by that same name has been trying to control or heavily influence that article's content for some time. Also, I have serious concerns about the use of the archived version of the Oregon database in order to add negative information to the WIU article. I will continue to notify you so that you can give your side as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This WNU accusation is highly problematic, in my opinion. If he didn't hear the false story from someone else then he must have just made it up himself. In Cla68's campaign he frequently mischaracterized me and my edits. I believe that the WNU accusation is just a further demonstration that Cla68 appears to obfuscate and twist the truth in his dealings with me. He made false claims about me involving WNU. The old name for WNU was Kennedy Western University. I did find two places on the website where the initials of KWU were found.  Neither place is anyone saying that Derek Smart had a degree from there. No place on the website was there ever any such thing. Here's archive.org copies of the Flame War Follies website and I invite Cla68 to find the "emails" there that he claimed he found on the website. He won't be able to do it because they never existed. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Bill Huffman

message: :Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
:This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*Awaiting further statements. On an initial review, I find this situation to be troubling. I urge Bill Huffman to refrain from posting to Talk:Derek Smart until this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for your responses (and for yours to KnightLago's, BillHuffman).  There is little doubt in my mind that we'd all be best off if you did not edit the Derek Smart talk page (at least KnightLago and Shell Kinney seem to agree with me on this point); you seem to suggest that this would have little impact on your overall editing habits, so I hope you'll make that voluntary commitment even absent a formal request from us to do so (it seems a little odd for us to be passing formal requests for things that are within our power to mandate).  Your comments about unaccredited post-secondary institutions appear to me to be neither here nor there; this is a request for amendment to a case about the Derek Smart article, such amendment being specifically focused on the Derek Smart talk page.  If you believe that the topic area of unaccredited post-secondary institutions requires our attention, you are welcome to request a case on that, but I do not see what bearing it has on this request. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *In view of BillHuffman's voluntary commitment to stay away from Talk:Derek Smart, I don't believe an amendment to this case is necessary. Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: *Awaiting further statements. On an initial review, I find this situation to be troubling. I urge Bill Huffman to refrain from posting to Talk:Derek Smart until this matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for your responses (and for yours to KnightLago's, BillHuffman).  There is little doubt in my mind that we'd all be best off if you did not edit the Derek Smart talk page (at least KnightLago and Shell Kinney seem to agree with me on this point); you seem to suggest that this would have little impact on your overall editing habits, so I hope you'll make that voluntary commitment even absent a formal request from us to do so (it seems a little odd for us to be passing formal requests for things that are within our power to mandate).  Your comments about unaccredited post-secondary institutions appear to me to be neither here nor there; this is a request for amendment to a case about the Derek Smart article, such amendment being specifically focused on the Derek Smart talk page.  If you believe that the topic area of unaccredited post-secondary institutions requires our attention, you are welcome to request a case on that, but I do not see what bearing it has on this request. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *In view of BillHuffman's voluntary commitment to stay away from Talk:Derek Smart, I don't believe an amendment to this case is necessary. Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion