Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Ferrylodge

Initiated by Anythingyouwant (talk) at 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Ferrylodge arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Ferrylodge Restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge_restricted
Restriction lifted

Statement by Anythingyouwant

First off, I want to notify Arbcom that I am now editing under a new username, instead of my old username which was Ferrylodge.

The restriction was imposed in 2007. Since then, I have edited many articles, including the articles subject to the restriction, and yet the log of blocks and bans is empty. Unless this was intended as a lifetime restriction, now would seem as good a time as any to lift it. This was a mild restriction, which did not prevent me from editing any article, and it would seem that a mild restriction is more appropriate for lifting than a more serious restriction. Lifting the restriction would allow me to interact with other editors on an equal basis, though of course I would abide by all applicable guidelines and policies (as I have been doing at the articles in question ever since the restriction was imposed). Thanks.

@Carcharoth - You're right, there have only been a few edits to that range of articles since April 2010. I just made a couple more a few minutes ago. None of them have been controversial. I only realized today that I should let ArbCom know about the name change, and I wasn't previously aware that it was an issue. Anyway, I would be glad to refrain from editing that range of articles until this request for lifting is disposed of. If the restriction is lifted, then I'll be in the position of everyone else who changes his/her name, and would be glad to do whatever they usually do. As far as notifying the old Arbitrators, I'll go do that now, and provide the diffs here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Since my present and past user and talk pages now cross-reference each other, I guess there is no need to refrain from editing any articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, here are the diffs (for all the old Arbs except Kirill who is apparently a glutton for punishment): Yellow Monkey/Blnguyen,jpgordon,Jdforrester/James F.,Morven,FloNight,Fred Bauder,Charles Matthews,Mackensen,Uninvited Company.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on my new user page disclosing the previous username. I thought it might be simpler to just refrain from editing the articles in question until we see how this amendment request goes, but it's no big deal, I'll go do it and make a note of it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, my new talk page and user page now say what the former user name was. However, I cannot edit the Ferrylodge talk and user pages, because they're protected. Please feel free to do the redirects, given that I apparently can't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - I took eight months off from Wikipedia,during which I did negligible editing, and then last month I started again with some IP edits before re-opening a named account. I mentioned at the named account talk page that I made some IP edits, just to be very open and unambiguous about it. I would be glad to provide diffs of those edits as best as I can reconstruct them (my IP address was not always the same). However, it would be much easier to just provide the diffs regarding edits to the range of articles in question. Would that be adequate? I'll get started on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Okay, by way of introduction, I was the main editor who brought the Roe v. Wade article through Featured Article Review in 2007,[1] and I think that's the only relevant article where I've made IP edits, all of which were made a few days ago before I resumed full editing under a username. Here are the diffs in chronological order (most of them were consecutive and none have been reverted or contested): [2],[3],[4][5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] (the last one reverted vandalism while the edit summary had some slight humor).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - I don't think the remedy in my case authorized any admin to impose a topic ban; at least, I've not heard that said before. It was an article-by-article remedy: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." And, of course, I was never subsequently banned from any such article. Nada. As for the other thing, yes, I am clear why the remedy was imposed in the first place, and will be much more careful so as not to return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed. With one caveat. Part of the remedy was to overturn a complete ban from Wikipedia, which was a completely absurd ban as ArbCom recognized (much like the later failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced). I do not feel responsible for ill-advised administrative action that may occur in the future, though I will do my best to avoid it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Sure, I'll try to track that stuff down.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - Here ya go: [17],[18],[19],[20]. All were properly denied because there was no violation of the remedy. Frankly, the repeated requests for enforcement, even though unwarranted, have disinclined me somewhat to edit the articles in question, because responding to such things is a real pain (as was participating in the ArbCom proceeding in 2007, no offense intended).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth - The previous four links were from Arbitration Enforcement. There were also a couple further rejected requests that got ArbCom involved again; see the bottom of the talk page for the Ferrylodge Arbcom case.[21]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell - MastCell and I have had interactions at other articles that I have edited, in addition to articles that are within the scope of this ArbCom remedy. Call that a coincidence if you like. If I were an Admin, for example, I would have blocked him long ago for POV-pushing, harassment, wiki-stalking, and vandalism at the Clarence Thomas article. But, as I said, that's all outside the scope of this ArbCom remedy, and MastCell has not linked to any article that is within the scope of this ArbCom remedy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell - I left Wikipedia for eight months because of what happened with MastCell at the Clarence Thomas article, which included expansion of my block log. If that incident (and a comment I made about it) is to be ArbCom's reason for maintaining a lifetime restriction on me for an entirely different set of articles, then perhaps you should look at what happened at the Clarence Thomas article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ - KillerChihuahua, the comment MastCell linked to relates to what happened at a completely different article, unrelated to the set of articles at issue here. Please note that the "very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc" that KillerChihuaua mentions is from three years ago, and is therefore unrelated to events after the restriction was imposed on me in 2007. And in answer to KC's question ("Why, is he planning on being disruptive?") the answer is of course "no." I am tired of having to defend against meritless enforcement actions, and interminable requests to expand the remedy, which have made me reluctant to touch the articles in question. I want to be treated as an equal, instead of as a pariah forever. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I'm not necessarily opposed to lifting the sanction (it was ineffectual anyway, and efforts to enforce it tended to bog down in legalistic parsing of "articles" vs. "pages"). I do hope that the reviewing Arbs will look at the enforcement requests linked by Anythingyouwant, since I don't personally think they're as he's represented them. I do think that there should be some straightforward means of addressing a return to the previously recognized "long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion", short of returning to ArbCom, but that's just me. In contrast to Carcharoth, I am not particularly optimistic about Anythingyouwant's assurances that he understands the reason for the findings against him, based in part on these sorts of responses. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I have seen nothing to indicate that Ferrylodge, now Anythingyouwant, has any concept of why he was placed under restriction - the comment MastCell linked to indicates denial and hostility, not understanding and determination to amend his ways. I have seen similar denial when he was blocked by Bishonen for harassment (of me, incidentally) - he carried his strident denial of wrongdoing through a very long ANI thread and subsequent Rfc, and never indicated he understood the problems his behavior caused. I do see him requesting a lifting of what amounts to a gentle admonishment, combined with a heightened scrutiny, or to put it another way, a lower tolerance, as he has - to be somewhat vulgar - "used up" his allotment of reminders and passes. In short, he requests that the sanction that he can be blocked or banned from an article in the topic area where he has caused massive problems before, if he is disruptive, be lifted. Why, is he planning on being disruptive? I ask not to be sarcastic but in all seriousness, as a Socriatic examination of rationale. If he has no plans to be disruptive, to push the envelope, to see what he can "get away with", I fail to see that he would gain anything. If, on the other hand,he does feel the need to have this lifted, my concerns are raised that perhaps he plans to re-enter the "arena" as it were, with renewed vigor. That is not a desirable thing to happen. I recommend the sanction, such as it is, be left in place. He will have no concerns if he keeps his manner civil and his editing collegial. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Earlier comments collapsed for readability

Waiting for statements from the other parties that have been notified, but making initial comments as well. It would be courteous to also notify the (mostly now former) arbitrators who made this decision, as they may have some insights here as well. While we wait, I've been checking that the return of Anythingyouwant (who was renamed from a previous username) all got sorted out OK. I see the talk page was fully restored, but there are some deleted edits at the old user page, what should be done with those? Also, I think the old userpage and talk page (before the rename in July 2009) should be redirected to the current pages or some notice placed there for those who click on the old username which is still linked from several places and in histories. There was also something last year about ArbCom restricted users not renaming, but as your case was in 2007, and you renamed in 2009, you might not have been aware of that. The one additional question I have at the moment is whether you edited articles subject to the restriction since April 2010 (when you returned), as it might not have been clear to everyone who you were? I see only one edit, which was after you filed this amendment: [22]. You really need to make clearer who you used to be before you make edits in that area, as otherwise you are effectively evading scrutiny that could be applied under the restriction you are asking to be amended. Not everyone will realise or know what your former username was. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notifications, Anythingyouwant. Do you think you could also redirect the old userpage and user talk page and have a note on your user page disclosing your previous username? This is not normally required, but it is in this case because in order for the remedy to have any meaning, people need to know that you are still (despite the rename) under this remedy. Once we get to that point, we can then wait for others to add their statements. Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Update: I've unprotected and redirected the old user pages - there is also an entry at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians that needs removing or updating. 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, another question has occurred to me. In a thread in the history of your talk page, you mentioned that you had done occasional editing as an IP before returning to this account. To properly assess the amendment request, we would need your full editing history here following the case. It would be best if you fully disclosed those edits, either here or by e-mail (the latter if there are privacy concerns). Would you be prepared to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further updates. Provisionally, I can't see any reason not to lift the remedy (which wasn't an actual restriction, only providing admins the option ~~to topic ban you~~ for article-by-article bans), providing you are clear why it was imposed in the first place, and won't return to the conduct that led to that remedy being imposed. I say provisionally, because I will still be watching this request to see what those you have notified (one of whom has been inactive for nearly a month, the other having been more active recently) have to say, plus any former arbs who chose to comment, and obviously what the rest of the current ArbCom have to say (and they would have to vote on any motion as well). But I'm happy there is enough information here to go on so far. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Quibble addressed. 19:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, you say there were "failed attempts by involved administrators to have the article-by-article remedy enforced"? That sounds like something that should be in the records somewhere and could be linked to. Could you link to those discussions please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a few more comments here than just the appellant, but right now I don't see any reason to remove the restriction. There don't appear to be any current article bans in place, so I don't believe this will prevent you from editing but we have very little to go on here and edits like the one MastCell points out aren't very promising. This gives administrators a tool to deal with any behavioral concerns given your past history of them. Shell ^babelfish 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I've edited cooperatively with the user. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting remedy - Ferrylodge (editing under that account name) appears to have been constructive in his editing of Abortion and Talk:Abortion in the fall of 2009; there were no sanctions imposed on him at that time, nor was he restricted by administrators. I appreciate that his behaviour in the period before the sanctions were imposed were sufficiently unacceptable to lead to an arbitration case and sanctions; however, there does appear to have been a tacit recognition that his behaviour needed to change. In the current editing climate, the community (and individual administrators) is much more willing to address problematic behaviour without the direct intervention of the Arbitration Committee, and I have little doubt that if there are recurrent problems, the community can at least get the ball rolling on any needed sanctions. Risker (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf

Initiated by — Jeff G. ツ at 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

JBsupreme warned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Jeff G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

JBsupreme (diff of notification of this thread on JBsupreme's talk page)
Jeff G. (diff of creation of this thread, for completeness)

Amendment 1

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#JBsupreme_warned.
I would like to change the remedy to:

1) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Statement by Jeff G.

Accompanying edits with diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued (since the warning in the original remedy) making edits with problematic edit summaries, which are uncivil, contain personal attacks, or contain assumptions of bad faith. This behavior has been despite the warning in the original remedy, and despite attempts to change the user's behavior (since the warning in the original remedy) via user talk page posts by multiple editors, including Amalthea, Jéské Couriano, Maunus, and Will Beback. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 for background. In addition, that user's user talk page currently stands at a rather unwieldy 228 kilobytes, and the user has actively declined to archive it or even index it. — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor: User:Maunus

It seems to me that this amendment is necessary in order to have any kind of administrative leverage against this long time pattern of verbal abuse which does not contribute to making wikipedia a friendly and good work environment. It seems to me that JBSupreme is wilfully ignoring any request about changing his behaviour and the banner above his talk page[23] suggests the same. It feels to me like the system is being intentionally gamed here in a fashion that cannot be avoided untill an amendment like the proposed one is applied.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (2)

Many others have tried to counsel JBsupreme by posting on that user's user talk page, only to be countered by summary removal of their posts by that user. For further background, please see:

11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again

Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Niteshift36

There wasn't a lot of support about this at ANI and for good reason. The complainant seems to be making a project out of this. While JB might not be polite, he's really not making personal attacks (which was the original complaint). Further, this seems to have started when the complainant kept trying to add a link to a deleted article onto a list (for reasons he has yet to explain) and got his nose out of joint over it. As I said at ANI, frankly, I just don't care if some vandal gets his feelings hurt and I think it's a big waste of time to jump through all these hoops over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (3)

I would also like to change the heading for that section to a more appropriate one, such as "JBSupreme restricted". — Jeff G. ツ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29. — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I have no involvement in this matter other than leaving a note on JBsupreme's talk page and some minimal comments at ANI. However I see that, in addition to incivility, the previous decision also faulted JBsupreme for "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". JeffG posted his ANI complaint at 05:33, 14 May 2010. JBsupreme made his most recent edit 05:15, May 14, 2010, just 18 minutes earlier. It appears that he has not responded to the good-faith criticism on his user talk page, on the ANI thread, or here. Will Beback talk 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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.

JBsupreme hasn't edited since May 14. Pcap ping 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's been six days now. There is no rush (a look at his contributions during the current calendar year shows that he has had periods of at least a week's absence before), and the thing to do now is be patient and wait, but at some point we will need to work out another way to resolve this if there is no response after 10 days or so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

No time to write a full response here, but on an initial perusal of the edit summaries used by JBsupreme, I am not impressed at all. All those edit summaries are viewable by anyone reading or editing this website, and are undoubtedly read by more than just the people they were directed at. I will wait to hear what JBsupreme has to say, but I am tempted to add an enforceable remedy to this case by motion to address this ongoing conduct. A general observation I would also make is that while it is tempting for any editor to act the way they want to act, or feel they can act, some restraint is needed, and gratuitous incivility and lack of restraint over a long period of time is something that should be addressed eventually, especially when it is possible to say the same thing in a more restrained manner. There is no prize for coming up with the most cutting and biting edit summaries possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (Noting here to maintain a transparent record of earlier dialogue: [24], [25])[reply]
I'm in agreement with Carcharoth here; the edit summaries provided seem well outside of the normal decorum expected when editing. Shell ^babelfish 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Derek Smart

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Derek Smart arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

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 [26]. 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)[reply]

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: [27] [28] [29]. 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)[reply]

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 [30]. 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)[reply]

Statement by 72.192.46.9

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[31], 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. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[32]. 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. [33] Through all of this, even while conflict of interest concerns were raised, Bill Huffman's editing patterns were often praised.[34]. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[35] 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. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Statement by Atama

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 here), 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 redacted the personal info and warned Cla68) 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 defended 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 propose a compromise, 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 "broker a deal for him". After that, I was more insistent with TallMagic and pleaded with him 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 here 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 next comment 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 given up 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 didn't believe him 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 declared that he had left Wikipedia, but then Cla68 informed me 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)[reply]

Statement by Orlady

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)[reply]

Statement by Bill Huffman

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 [36]. On February 22, 2009 I accidentally edited the article with my TallMagic account instead of the Bill Huffman account[37]. 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."[38]

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.)".[39] 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 [40]. 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[41].
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
1. Outing and a COI[42]
2. 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.[43] Does Cla68 not understand the outing policy? Perhaps, but he failed an RfA because of an outing incident he was apparently involved with[44] 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.
3. Cla68 filed a SPI against me[45] 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.
4. 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.
  1. (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)[46][reply]
    1. addendum: Note that in Cla68's quote above, the word "This" is a Webcitiation link to the Wikipedia page that contains User:CRedit_1234's outing that he was subsequently indefinitely blocked for.
    2. addendum3:The Webcitation page disappeared. Here is what it's contents were[47]Bill Huffman (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cla68 posts incidents on a few noticeboards (BLP and Reliable Sources) in an attempt to find fault with my edits. These too were settled with a consensus in my favor, yet Cla68 continues what seems obvious to me to be harassment.
6. Cla68 makes a request to ArbCom[48] Where he also attempts another outing that Hipocrite redacts[49]
7. Finally I feel that this current action is another attempt at harassment. As far as I know, this campaign of Cla68's is the first time there has been absolutely any interaction at all between us. I would really appreciate it if Cla68 was told to stop harassing me as Cla68 seems to pledge he will continue when he says, "as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums". from above[50]
  1. addendum2: Of course if part of Cla68's motivation has to do with an off-Wikipedia encounter then I'd have no way of knowing that for sure, although I am suspicious.

Bill Huffman (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @SirFozzie: I don't have time to respond to what I believe are Cla68's misleading accusations at this time. I just wanted to say here that I'm happy not to edit Talk:Derek Smart (I've never editted the article.) until this is settled. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith question: ii. I edit talk:Derek Smart for the same reason that I edited Wikipedia in general. When I was a kid I used to spend many hours just reading the set of encyclopedias that my parents had bought. I started doing that with Wikipedia. I felt an obligation and felt I could try to help "repay" my enjoyment by contributing to the project. My thought was to contribute in areas where I had some interest and expertise. At the time there was just under 2 million articles in English and I came to really appreciate how well the policies and guidelines had to work to accomplish such an amazing feat. My appreciation grew considering how problematic it was improving two articles that I had some interest in, Derek Smart and Pacific Western University (California). It was problematic getting improvements into those two articles because the Wikipedia process had broken down. Derek Smart article because of surrogate edit warring and PWU because of legal threats. After the ArbCom ruling the Wikipedia process was allowed to work and the Derek Smart article was stabilized within two or three weeks. Anyway, the bottom line is that I edited Wikipedia because I appreciated Wikipedia as a resource and wanted to do my part to improve that resource for other readers. question iii The article is marginally notable in my opinion. As a game developer alone it probably doesn't reach notability. As an "eccentric and vocal personality" alone it likely doesn't reach notability. In my opinion when they are put together it does reach sufficient notability. I actually argued for deletion in the last AFD, if I remember correctly. That was due in part to my mistaken belief that the surrogate accounts would never allow real progress to be made on the article.Bill Huffman (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Response to KnightLago: The question seems ambiguous to me. You say that you're in agreement with NewYorkBrad and so I'll answer that potential meaning first. Yes, I have already agreed not to edit until after this is settled. The other potential meaning I see, I'll answer next. If ArbCom votes for and passes a request that I voluntarily no longer contribute to the talk:Derek Smart page (I've never edited the article) then of course I will comply.[reply]

Here's more detail on my view of the potential request.
I assume that the concern is that after contributions here spanning about three and half years I might all of sudden change my editing pattern and start making problematic edits? Sort of like a proactive sheriff asking honest people to volunteer for jail because someone has accused them of being a dishonest thief but is unable to prove any of their false accusations? (See our anon friend was correct, I sometimes enjoy being sardonic. :-) )
I most definitely would not be the least bit interested in contributing to any volunteer group should the highest authority of that organization say that not only are my contributions unappreciated, they are unwanted.
In the past year I've contributed to maybe three threads on the Derek Smart article talk page. My absence from the article would not cause the article to degrade. It would only mean that perhaps some updates in the future might not be made since my main role has been letting editors know on the talk page when new information has become available.
This really would cause me far less consternation than watching articles that were on my watch list going through degradation far faster than I feared. First properly sourced critical information disappears from the articles then unsourced praise creeps in and eventually Wikipedia ends up hosting advertisements for substandard unaccredited institutions.
I respectfully suggest that greater concerns should be preventing Wikipedia from becoming an unpaid advertisement for unaccredited institutions and understanding why a valuable contributor was chased off of Wikipedia and how can such things be prevented in the future?
Bill Huffman (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith, response to okay, done Cla68, response to I never said Mr. Smart claimed a degree from WNU. I really don't understand why Cla68 keeps attacking me. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) A simple google search of the werewolves.org website proves Cla68's untruthfulness in his latest statements. WNU is not mentioned anyplace on the website.[51]. Please ask him why he is doing this?! Bill Huffman (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC) addenum: I would like to further address this statement by Cla68, "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." I want to assure the committee that these emails discussing Derek Smart having a degree from WNU never existed. As far as I know, Derek Smart has not ever claimed to have a degree from WNU. I never had any such emails on my site. I most assuredly never deleted any such emails off of my site. Bill Huffman (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

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)[reply]
I have to admit that people claiming that Cla68 was outing a user by linking him to a real name alternate account that the person was using. to be.. slightly puzzling, to say the least. I second Brad's suggestion above that the posting on the Derek Smart page(s) should cease until this can be further reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: i. to Cla68, do you have evidence of specifically problematic editing of Talk:Derek Smart by Bill Huffman, or is this request based solely on the premise that any editing of a BLP's talk page by a real life adversary of that BLP's subject is inherently problematic? ii. to Bill Huffman, is there a reason you feel compelled to edit Talk:Derek Smart, and, if so, is that reason independent from the off-site anti-Derek Smart campaign you have been waging? iii. Is there a reason that nobody has listed Derek Smart at AFD for three and a half years? Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whether or not Bill Huffman's edits have been specifically problematic, given the serious external dispute, I can't see any compelling reason for him to edit either the article or the talk page. Shell ^babelfish 06:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Newyorkbrad and Shell. Mr. Huffman, will you voluntarily agree to refrain from any editing that relates to Derek Smart, including talk pages? KnightLago (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]