Well, now that he is on Wiki and editing Derek Smart this is sure to become another battleground if/when Smart and his followers get wind of it and show up.

Nobody knows for sure why he does it. But the fact is that Huffman has unarguably been harrassing and net stalking Derek Smart since as far back as 1996 on Usenet and online forums. There is on reported incident of Huffman instigating a minor named Louis (louisJM on Usenet) another Smart detractor who used to live near Smart's former home, to follow him around his neighborhood one day to find out where he actually lives. That incident ended up involving the cops and the court system after Smart filed for a restraining order. Shortly before he stopped his activities, the kid told authorities that Huffman had asked him to do it. Louis disppeared from Usenet shortly after.

Huffman is known all over the internet and many have written about his activities against Smart to the extent that whenever Smart shows up on a web forum, Huffman is sure to follow. He (and sometimes both of them) usually end up getting banned once the furor from Usent spills over. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Smart, why do you think that you are allowed to put lies, insults and falsehoods on my talk page? I have never edited Derek Smart. The flame war was never about me no matter how much you say that. I never stalked Mr. Smart. I was on Usenet well before Mr. Smart was. I participated in Mr.Smart's flame war because it was amusing and because I disagree with academic fraud. Mr. Smart claimed an accredited PhD. I proved that it was not an accredited PhD. Eventually Mr. Smart even admitted that it was an unaccredited PhD. Heck, he even admitted that his alma mater was listed in the diploma mill chapter of Dr. John Bear's guide. Out of revenge/frustration Mr. Smart would attack me with lies about netstalking, like he does above.

Regarding the Louis stuff and me following Mr. Smart around to forums and most everything else in SC's paragraphs above, it is the usual lies that Mr. Smart used to like to spew. I had nothing to do with that Louis incident that he linked to. Your link doesn't indicate that it does. Your link is to a discussion about an incident where Louis accuses Mr. Smart of following him around in his car one weekend, ostensibly so Mr. Smart could find out where Louis lived. You tell lies then link to nonsense as if it somehow proves your lies are true. This is a classical Derek Smart duplicitous technique. Your dishonesty is really mind boggling. Please go away, tell only the truth, do not continue your academic fraud, and I will be delighted to leave you to your troubles that you will undoubtably generate on your own. Bill Huffman

Why the hell not JBKramer? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two words that best describe you, Mr. Smart, is inappropriate and dishonest (as is exemplified by your academic fraud). Just go away and stop netstalking me.

It is fun to note that Mr. Smart has been posting on Wikipedia for a long time. (I know that Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk deny that they are Derek but his writing style is really easy to spot and it was shown that Derek Smart uses the same Bell South ISP in southern Florida.) On Usenet June 14, 2006, I referenced your old antics being replayed on WP. I read your nonsense but wasn't interested in playing with you and your academic fraud anymore, even though you wrote a purely attack piece on me here on WP before I ever showed up on WP. So this further debunks your lie that I netstalk you. I more recently became active here on WP in a couple other articles involving academic fraud and decided to correct a few of your more blatant lies about me that seemed to be impacting the discussion on Talk:Derek Smart. Then you start spreading attack notes on my user page and then my talk page. You know Mr. Smart, if you keep net stalking me, it will just make it more likely that I'll decide to rejoin your little flame war at least the one you have made over the Derek Smart article. Heck you might even make it interesting enough for me to update my website on werewolves dedicated to your flame war ways. I haven't updated that in over four years. Bill Huffman 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I did decide to update the Werewolves site since Supreme_Cmdr has continued to be so insistent. Bill Huffman 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer of help in tracking down an article for use in the article. It is my understand that, at this point, the claim is being made that Derek Smart never even used the abbreviation Ph.D to sign off. I cannot possibly claim to be as familiar as yourself with the subject, but I've been around long enough to remember him signing off on soapbox articles on his own website as such. Richard Kyanka spoofed it in parodies on his website. It was fairly common knowledge among the sort of people who follow video games and video gamers closely enough.

Suffice to say I am convinced that he asserted that he was a Ph.D. and that it was refuted because I read about it at the time. But at this point we would need to provide some "reliable" source that verifies this. Something that isn't a parody, or an archived newsgroup, or overtly critical of Smart and would actually care enough about him to note that this happened. No mean task. But I think perhaps some sort of press release or gaming article would suffice. Once we've established that it did happen, we can move forward on the details of what was said and when. I believe that with a neutral third party piece of evidence, the newsgroup citations would carry more weight because they are both confirming the same thing, but one is a Primary document, and its account would be more detailed and to the point.

Anyways before this turns into a manifesto, I'll search the web for some information and link it to the Derek Smart talk page if I find anything useful. If you would be kind enough to help, I would appreciate it, and I think the people who originally put so much effort into the rewrite would as well. It's part of the story, good or bad, and efforts to exclude it because of some lawyering minutiae are straight up lame.

Please feel free to respond with any ideas or suggestions or snide comments to my talk page. Thanks again. Mael-Num 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Okay, maybe not too difficult at all...

Authored by Smart, signed with a Ph.D. and linked to from the 3000AD site. Next perhaps we can find an account of the challenge to his Ph.D. claim and his response that is independent of your own site. Would you know where we could find one? Mael-Num 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly where I would have gone to look at those old interviews. I think what you linked to was probably a copy of the same story that was released with the free version of the first BC3K game. I can double check on that if you want me to. Anyway, it looks like the early interview links are all dead. I know that the PhD was mentioned in a few of the early interviews. Once the story of the academic fraud grew though, Mr. Smart stopped claiming a PhD in his interviews probably to try and avoid any unpleasant questions. Bill Huffman 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those early interviews, flame war follies site, and Google are the only places I know of that the other stuff is available. I did a cursory check of the BC Story and they do appear to be identical to the story that was sent out with the free version and the same one that was placed at the end of the BC3K manual. Bill Huffman 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should ponder the case of Smart still signing as a Ph.D. Of course, while this looks like it could be him, I am not certain. Note the dates. I lol'd.

Anywhoo, I think Jeffness and I are forming up an argument to sway consensus (and maybe any moderators) in favor of the Usenet cites. The only assumption I think our argument relies on is, as with the Avault forum posts I just linked, that those Usenet posts are absolutely Derek Smart's. Again, I can think of no one better qualified to ask for help in verifying this. I think if we can show that they are Smart's in the talk pages, we've got a pretty solid case for the Ph.D section's inclusion. Any ideas? Mael-Num 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet posts all have the news server ISP that was used to post the Usenet note. Those can be tracked to Mr. Smart's locale. Besides that, there are a few examples of Mr. Smart posting on Usenet and linking in his post to images or files in the BC3000ad web server that are on on that server apparently only for Usenet access. So those exact posts, of course, can be absolutely linked to Mr. Smart and then if the IP address matches between the posts we're interested in and the absolutely identified posts, it would make a very strong argument. I'll work on it tonight. Bill Huffman 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very sensitive topic. Please see Wikipedia:Office Actions; you'll note that Pacific Western University is on the list of office-protected articles, one of just 7 among the 1.5 million articles in the English language Wikipedia. You may want to read the full article history and talk page, including the archive of older talk page remarks. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you A.B.. I fully appreciate the wise approach that it is better safe than sorry. However, the current state of the PWU article is misleading in my POV because not mentioning unaccredited implies accredited in the minds of most people. I think the article should be deleted altogether or perhaps leave it totally blank if that is required to keep it "protected". I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the legal situation is that the only degree that PWU can legally offer is in business administration. None of the other degrees have been approved by the BPPVE. Unfortunately the BPPVE has been "out to lunch" for a number of years and has not been able to do anything since closing down Columbia Pacific University. Bill Huffman 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its good that you changed the term "diploma mill" to "substandard".

But whats up with using the term "shown" in that sentence? To use this term means that a definative conclusion was drawn.

Now we had this whole discussion and nobody is going to budge one way or another. You think the hearing was fair and the witness was credible. I think the whole thing was biased and did not prove anything. And I really have a problem believing that anyone can earn 40% of their credit in 16 hours (or whatever it was). I would love to talk to that person and find out how she did it, because I certainly have no idea.

So maybe, possibly can we do something to show a little neutrality here?

Peace Piercetp 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierce, I suggest that you make a proposal on the KWU talk page. Perhaps the wording could be based on the wording prior to what it said before the obvious NPOV violation? I think it is better discussed on the KWU talk page because future editors might benefit from it. Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway addressing your point about how she did it. She studied the Table of Contents and Index then took the test. She had to take the first test twice before learning this technique. Perhaps the only two tests out of everything offered by KWU were the two that she took, if so it would be an amazing coincidence, but the life experience credits given to her was also a gross violation of academic rigor. The new policies put in place are significantly different from WNU. Doesn't that further prove that KWU was academically substandard? It seems an obvious truth to me that KWU was/is academically substandard. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would depend on whether of not the exam taken involves caluculations. I can tell you that the tests were all timed tests and consisted of anywhere from 20 to 40 questions. I would say that its not that easy.

Now about the article... well we will keep that discussion on the talk page.

Have a happy holiday season. Piercetp 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did bring up the subject of Academic fraud regarding unaccredited universities. I kind of have a pet peeve of my own that i would like to talk to you about.

You might be interested to know that there is a great deal of fraud concerning student athletes, particularly those on Football and Basketball teams.

I happen to know this because I have a friend who teaches History at University of Illinois. U of I has very strict admission standards for virtually all students. I myself could not be admitted as a Freshman in fact.

But this person I know actually taught a remedial course on social sciences to get students who do not have the necessary aptitute to learn at a University level. And guess what, all his students were athletes.

One rather funny story, there was this big ox of a man, a lineman for the Football team. And this guy got a 10 on his ACTs. I myself cannot imagine how anyone can score a 10. Even if you guess the answers I would say you can do better than than.

But in my opinion, I think that when you allow people in a competitive university based solely on their abilities to perform at a sport than you are being unfair to the other students.

Maybe we can both agree that this kind of academic fraud is something that shoudl be stopped. Piercetp 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierce! Absolutely yes I agree with you. Another common activity done at RA schools that can easily lead to academic fraud is honorary doctorate titles. I'm not talking so much about the ones where they give a major celebrity/politician an honorary doctorate to give a graduation speech. The ones that are more often abused are the ones given for large financial contributions. Have fun, Bill Huffman 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I loved your ACT score of 10 story. I hope he was an extra good football player. :-)[reply]

BTW, I've been anxiously awaiting your proposed wording for the "shown" and what was shown/implied. Perhaps something based on the wording prior to the anon change? Regards, Bill Huffman 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:RFAR for the arbitration request on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]