Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Custerwest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest

[edit] Outside view by Miskwito - response by Custerwest

This comment was moved from the RfC page per RfC format, which specifies that "'All' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page."

<begin moved comment>

"plagiarism and misuse/falsification of sources are either the result of a remarkable disregard for careful scholarship"

PROOVE IT. What a joke. Every attempt to make the Washita article more serious and less POV (or worse) is a waste of time for some editors are ready to put the thing down from the beginning. "No military commanders at Washita". False. 13 warchiefs were there. But it's no written on the article because Yskin's gang decided so. I am not impressed by this kind of comical "scolarship". Custerwest 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

</end moved comment>

Actually, it's not Yksin's gang, it's simply that the sources don't support this claim. See the extensive rebuttal here. For you to claim that "every" attempt at making this article more serious is a waste of time is really insulting to the editors that have worked very hard to detail proposals, review them, discuss them, etc, on the article's talk page. You speak as if you're the only one who is capable of scholarly writing...belittling everyone else to make yourself look scholarly does little to help your case on the RfC. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I daresay it has already been proven that you misrepresented some sources and gave incorrect citations. The only question is whether this is because you were remarkably careless, or whether it was intentional intellectual dishonesty. The latter would be much more concerning, but either way, Yksin has quite convincingly demonstrated what you've done. Acting rude and macho isn't a counterargument. The real question is whether you can prove that you didn't misrepresent sources and give inaccurate citations. --Miskwito 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Been proven by what? Because Yskin and others said that it was false, it must be false? Have you checked any of the sources out? Did you read the books Yskin and others claim to have read? You just decided to trust the ones who said that I was lying... and who claimed that there was no warchief in the Cheyenne village altough 13 of them were numbered by the Indians themselves. I won't try to convince people with such dishonesty, and I won't waste time trying to proove my case to people like you who haven't read anything on the matter. Your "neutral opinion" on the affair is based only on opinions and feelings. No historical research here. There isn't a single editor on the Washita page who isn't Yskin's buddy. So much of the "debate" and "historical arguments". If I hadn't fought these individuals, the page would have talked about the Cherokees and the Trail of Tears... I protested against it, and they put it down, only to erase any link to warchiefs and any proof that the Indians had commited outrages. The whole interview of Little Rock was deleted, altough it was the major cause of the battle. This whole thing is called "propaganda" or "intellectual dishonesty" or "politically motivated writings". Custerwest 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're not going to bother trying to prove that Yksin is lying? Because I'm just so outrageous for questioning your actions? That doesn't make you seem like a poor, innocent, unfairly persecuted guy, it makes you seem guilty and trying to hide your guilt by angrily refusing to bother to prove your innocence. However, I admit that, not having actually read the passages in question, I can't know you're not telling the truth. But you should be able to see why the fact that you've never explicitly denied that you misquoted people, gave inaccurate citations, and misrepresented sources makes me and other people inclined to believe you did do those things. If we wanted to settle this once and for all, one possibility would be for you or Yksin to scan the pages in question from the books so everyone can see. But I don't want to impose work like that on your or Yksin or anyone else. So the simplest resolution would be for you to explicitly give an answer one way or another: did you misquote sources, give incorrect citations, and/or misrepresent sources you used? --Miskwito 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, silly me, I forgot all about Google books! So, having checked Hoig's book there, I can confirm Yksin's claims of your manipulation of the quote on pp. 249-50 on the white captives with Black Kettle, for example. Also, it is on pp. 249-50, as Yksin claims, not pg. 212 as you cited. --Miskwito 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Verklempt

I have to absolutely disagree. I don't appreciate being called ignorant, or any of the other things that Custerwest said with exclamation points at the end of every sentence. Not only is it alienating to other editors, but it is against policy. I would like to know in what way Verklempt thinks the RfC has "overreached" though. Murderbike 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, those are genuine examples of incivility. Comments like "My God, it's the worse example of ignorance I've ever seen" and "Do you know what you're talking about ? Surely no" and "Do you know the word HISTORIAN?" and "What a joke" are not merely "vigorous advocacy for a preferred version". They're personal attacks and belittling of other editors. So I also disagree with Verklempt's analysis. --Miskwito 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent activity

Since this RfC was initiated on 3 Aug 2007, almost all of Custerwest's article edits & many of his talk page edits have continued to be problematic. For what its worth, here's a quick review:

Linking to eponymous blog (WP:COI, WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking)

This last addition of his blog resulted in a warning from Akradecki (not his first) about WP:COI edits. Custerwest refrained from doing so until including a link to his blog with an extensive (& possible copyright-violating) quote purporting to be Michno's notes [1], which was one of the reasons behind a 24-hour block on 21 September 2007 (today).

Disruptive editing, not using edit summaries

The other reasons for the 24-hour block. As noted by the blocking admin, Akradecki, talk page discussion before edits and use of edit summaries were mandated by consensus of involved editors in the RfC on Battle of Washita River. The problematic edits were made today (21 Sep 2007) -- [2] [3].

Misstatement of what a source says at Battle of Little Bighorn (WP:VERIFY)

There was some dispute at Battle of the Little Bighorn about Indian casualty figures between Custerwest and Bhist (talk · contribs), who has identified himself as Bob Reece, President, Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield. Bhist wrote on 7 August 2007 about Custerwest's questionable use of a source at the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield website to content in the article that there were at least 200 Indian warriors killed in the battle. On 17 Aug 2007, Bhist removed the problematic material, and wrote on the talk page to explain the edit. Notice that the text of the deleted material includes the assertion: "However, the latest researchs of the National Park Service (June 2006) conclude that at least 200 warriors were killed on the battlefield alone" (emphasis added), whereas the source material makes it clear that the research hadn't concluded anything -- using qualifying language like "If this turns out to be true" and "still more research is required."

On 21 Aug 2007 Lookoo (talk · contribs) removed the questionable figure of 200 for Indian casualties that had been based on the false conclusion noted above. On 24 Aug 2007, Custerwest replaced the questionable figure of 200 to the infobox and placed the text from the Friends of the Little Bighorn site as a footnote. In a third edit he at least acknowledged that the researches referred to in the linked article had made no conclusions yet. (These edits were reverted by Oncamera (talk · contribs).) Custerwest's reply to Bhist's explanation on the talk page was also a little less than civil.

Unsourced POV edits at Black Kettle article (WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:VERIFY)

On 14 Sep 2007, the anon IP 134.21.9.181 (talk · contribs) made three successive edits [4] [5] [6] which added POV, unsourced claims about the Battle of Washita River to the article on Black Kettle. This anon IP is located at Universite de Fribourg, an IP it's already been shown is a probable anon IP account used by Custerwest.

Discussion on Battle of Washita River talk page

Not much problem here as long as it remains civil. Though I do get tired of hashing over the same stuff over & over & over again. Clara Blinn & NPOV, etc. -- how many times have we discussed this by now? --Yksin 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)