User talk:74s181/RfC

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Kwork (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Kwork, has demonstrated over and over again that he does not understand core wikipedia polices, has no interest in learning them and is here at wikipedia for one purpose, to teach the world about Alice Bailey's alledged anti-semitism. Anyone who disagrees with his very clear POV is attacked, criticized or seem as part of a conspiracy.

Desired outcome

For Kwork to discuss and relate to other editors without focusing on their motives and discounting their input because of alleged non-neutrality.

For Kwork to really review the core polices of Wikipedia, especially around editing and writing on controversial topics.

For the Alice Bailey page to stop being a battleground, which, having watched it for 7 months now, happens mainly when Kwork participates.

To immediately stop all personal attacks and comments on users alleged motives for being here, other then filing WP:COI or WP:SOCK reports.

To stop using the talk page as a discussion board for Alice Bailey's alledged anti-semitism- which includes stopping posting to the page quotes from her book, that are not commented on by strong 2ndary sources in harmony with WP:PSTS.

And lastly, for Kwork to say, "Yes, I am willing and open to working within the guidelines and procedures of wikipedia" or to cease editing here.

For Kwork to enter into a formal wiki-mentorship or have an ongoing relationship with an admin.

Description

Kwork arrived at wikipedia with his first edit being a post to the Alice Bailey talk page with this post.

Since then he has done everything conceivable to make the page a place to discredit the teachings and ideas of Alice Bailey.

This has included: ~accusing EVERY poster who disagrees with his position of being as being non-neutral, in cohorts with each other, an "Alice Bailey" supporter etc. ~blanking the article page ~attempting to have the page deleted ~All sorts of personal attacks ~Litterally refusing to acknowledge or dialogue about wikipedia policy.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Lack of understanding of core policies

WP:NPOV [[1]] [[2]]

WP:PSTS, self-published sources [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] (along with a "threat" of deletion) [[6]]

WP:RS [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

WP:V [[10]]

WP:NOR [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]]

Unwillingness to look at policy

Numerous time people have asked Kwork to review a policy or quoted a policy and asked Kwork to abide by it. Each times he brushes it off.

[[16]]

[[17]]

[[18]]

Extreme lack of WP:AGF/No understanding of WP:COI

Anyone who disagrees with Kwork is an Alice Bailey defender, in cahoots with others, "not neutral" or behaving "unethically."

For example, when an editor agreed with Kwork he said this [[19]] and this [[20]] and this [[21]]; later when she disagreed he attacked her [[22]]

Here are more examples: [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]][[32]] [[33]][[34]]

Here he posted his whole conspiracy theory (i.e., editors who don't agree with him must be meatpuppets) on the talk page (and then continued to attack anyone he lumped in this group): [[35]]

WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA

[[36]]

Thank Sethie for his input. Let me know if he has anything intelligent to say; or, perhaps, Sethie could contribute something to the article, rather than to the talk page. Kwork 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [[37]]

[[38]]

[[39]]

[[40]] (Neebish meaning "A weak-willed, timid, or ineffectual person")

[[41]]

[[42]]

[[43]]

[[44]]

WP:POINT/Bad faith edits

Kwork has demonstrated that when he doesn't get his way, he will disrupt the page

[[45]] [[46]] To retaliate for people asking for sources for his criticisms, he removed... the entire article. [[47]]

Here Kwork removed an entire section because I asked for citations, and later said I had "destroyed the section": [[48]]

[[49]]

Here Quark constantly says that the page lacks enough sources... and then he removes two of the few we have!: [[50]] [[51]]

Deletes bona fide references [52][53]

When we did not do as he wished, he attempted to nominate the page for deletion.... [[54]]

COI

Ex-Student of AAB

In many articles, it seems it is the "ex" members of groups that are the most vociferous critics and find it the most difficult to work with other editors to create a neutral article. Kwork appears to fall into this category of "ex's".

... On the other hand, I have ended all my

connections with the AAB teaching and its followers years ago.... Kwork 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...I have broken away from the AAB teaching

(which I now suspect is a hoax).... Kwork 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...As you know perfectly well, I was the personal

student of a person in the teaching who was second in importance only to Bailey herself, and I was his student for over five years... Kwork 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of WP:COI

Kwork's understanding of WP:COI is that someone who is close to a set of teachings disqualifies one from editing per WP:COI

It is a question of "closeness" to the Alice Bailey teaching. That is a consideration. Kwork 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be a personal relationship. "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal." In this case the devotion to the Alice Bailey teaching would be called religious, and it is problematic. And it is not problematic just for Jamesd1, but virtually every editor of this article....including, perhaps, SqueakBox.Kwork 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion seems to be driving edits

Kwork says he is Jewish, and this seems to color his edits (makes him very emotional about what should or should not be in the article regarding antisemitism) [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]] [[60]] [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] [[64]]

WP:SOAP

Here is Kwork's first entry on wikipedia [[65]]

[[66]]

After his additions which were full of OR and unsourced claims were toned done by Adhoc and Squeakbox, Kwork replied with this: [[67]]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

On Kwork's talk page, I listed three or so core policies that I felt he was not following, and sought to engage him in dialogue. His response to this was to dismiss what I said and further engage in WP:NPA. He then had his talk page deleted. Sethie 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC, which brought in two people: Bksinoob and Renee. As soon as they disagreed with Kwork he responded thusly: (Bksinoob: [[68]] [[69]], Reneehollee: [[70]])
Here are some attampts to dialogue with him on his talk page, which he did not respond to, and erased [[71]] [[72]]
Wikiquete alert [[73]]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Sethie 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Renee 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Repeatedly I have posted pleas for Kwork to read the Wiki guidelines and have tried to adequately reflect his concerns about antisemitism and others in a simple, neutral way. I don't think the "I'm new so don't know anything" argument flies here because if you look at the talk page, everyone's asking him to review the policies. If Kwork agrees to abide by the policies for a simple, balanced, neutral article, shows good-faith efforts of doing that (i.e., doesn't attack people who don't agree with him), then I'll withdraw support from this Rfc.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Jebbrady (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This dispute centers around Herbert W. Armstrong. Jebbrady feels that he is fighting against an entrenched Wikipedia bias toward religious discrimination. To this end, he has:

removed cited material (including information about Armstrong's second marriage and divorce),
declared that he will not allow unapproved sources to be used,
posted very long messages on the talk page, frequently of little direct relevance to whatever point he's addressing,
reverted attempts to summarize his and others' messages concisely
taken attempts at using the dispute resolution process as personal attacks ("vicious complaint", in one case)
very frequently forgotten to log in while editing from two different locations, so his contribution history is split between two IPs and an account
not consistently signed his talk page posts, and has changed the timestamp after the fact (he's gotten much better about this)
rarely used an edit summary
threatened to take content disputes to the highest levels of Wikipedia
and more, to be detailed below

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

My desired outcome is that Jebbrady accepts that he cannot dictate the content of Armstrong-related articles, that he must engage in true dialog with other users, and that he refrain from violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Summary by SarekOfVulcan

"A new order has come to the plains": RelHistBuff

Jebbrady started editing on October 28, 2006.[74] Over the course of 2 days, he systematically removed negative material from the Herbert W. Armstrong article, and added his own uncited material.[75].

Two weeks later, RelHistBuff, who had previously worked on the article, came in, saw the state of the article, and reverted, leaving a note on the Talk page requesting that any major changes be discussed there first, and that he would be citing further sources.[76] Without responding, Jebbrady (editing as an IP) not only restored his preferred version, but also added an extensive digression on the history and beliefs of the Sabbatarians.[77] After a several reverts back and forth, coupled with two requests by RelHistBuff to discuss on Talk, Jebbrady finally posted a long response, complaining about the POV of the new edit ("The record now speaks on that issue alone, and I have no concerns about anyone agreeing with me in my assessment of the NPOV of your edit there."), criticizing his "wholesale deleting of other's contributions", informing him that he didn't have the proper background to understand the material, ("I am not alone in straigtaway recognizing in this statement by you a lack of familiarity with and understanding of Armstrong's writings and the old WCG doctrines"), and threatening to take matters to the "appropriate Wikipedia authories". Should RelHistBuff not comply, he would "do my utmost to keep this reply visable to all if I am forced to by your actions"[78].

RelHistBuff responded that the new version read like a tract, and offered to remove objectionable material from his version and work forward from there. Jebbrady came back asserting that it would be like a Mozart article focusing only on the scandals in his life, rather than his unique contributions. He told RelHistBuff that "you project your own lack of NPOV into the work of others" and "your additions strike me as arguably the most obvious in the axe-to-grind-department that I've ever seen".[79] He then performed 10 more edits tweaking the wording, adding a few words/characters each time. RelHistBuff responded that he had removed language that Jebbrady had objected to, and adopted Jebbrady's characterization in other place, and called on him to reciprocate, stating that he was trying to cooperate with him. Jebbrady responded, "I'mn not seeing in you tone the making of an honest debate: I don't think my detailed criticism amounts to "accusations" any more than your first making sweeping, broad assertions that changes I was involved in "read like a tract" and tha tthe article is "filled with POV"."[80] This was followed by nine more revise-and-expand edits, some of which went back to comments that had been responded to already.[81] RelHistBuff offered to work forward from a completely-stripped-down article: Jebbrady offered to consider only revisions to his version.

"If you wish to make specific suggestions for alterations to the article version that you changed, the one that was cleened up and rebuilt these past three months and stood unchanged for abvout 7 weeks until your massive edit last week, I will be happy to implement them the most effective and fair way I can, as long as they are NPOV, logical, fair, proportioned, appropriate for an article on Armstrong as opposed to the WCG, and if they meet the overll criteria of professionally serving peoples' curiosity--without manipulating it-- curiosity about his teachings, booklets, the scope of the work, and even his overall moral prestige or lack thereof (if you choose to "go there") by focussing on what has been cleary established. A new order has come to the plains."[82]

(I recommend reading the whole response.)

After some more back and forth, RelHistBuff requested a third opinion, and Amatulic came in. He criticized RelHistBuff's apparent sense of ownership and some of his non-constructive criticism, but endorsed the idea of working forward from a minimal version.[83] Jebbrady wished he had stopped short of recommending a particular version, and accused him of not having read his comments ("I will in good faith cahnge the article from October with what you said in mind, but I guess I wouldn't mind if you reread my comments on the discussion page one more time.")[84] RelHistBuff again offered to let Jebbrady delete objectionable material from RelHistBuff's version and work forward: Jebbrady rejected this, complaining about the "ridiculous, negative innuendo", the "thinly veiled digs throughout" and the

"NOT A SINGLE MENTION of anything positive Bold textArmstrong was ever involved in. When you edited, you easily could have left the mention of such things there or splice things in elsewhere to at least balance out the article, and make it less embarrassing to the Wikipedia community, but did not."

He further stated "Good faith is assumed but trust can be broken at some pointcan it not?", "I did ask you to specifically spell out your problems with the Mid-Oct version, and you never did, but instead brought in a third party as a hail-mary it appears", "the importance of the issue of length pales compared to the other issues here", "the third party doesn't see how out of proportion the negativity in it is probably because he is not aware of all the honors Armstrong received", and "People familiar with the history of the WCG are also better able than a nuetral third party to see all its other biases and innaccuracies as a whole, and I will be happy to point all of them out to the Wikipedia authorities"[85].

Armstrongism edit

In mid-January, Jebbrady edited the Armstrongism article, changing this text:

Armstrongism refers to the doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). Some of the doctrines can be found in other religion groups including, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists while others are attributed to Armstrong. The church that he founded has now rejected most of his own teachings, but Armstrong's doctines live on in the splinter churches founded by the followers of Armstrong who dissented with the WCG church leaders after Armstrong.

to:

Armstrongism refers to the doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, thought by him and his followers to be the true doctrines, teachings and Gospel of the Bible, and are expressed and explained in greatest detail in his Bible study course--the Ambassador College Correspondence Course and his book Mystery of the Ages. Armstrong was founder of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG).[86]

and stating on the talk page that:

"This statement was removed by me and will remain so....For anyone to continue to assert that he borrowed his doctrines from those churches, in the face of the facts I just presented which anyone can easily verify, would be tantamount to religious bigotry, something that of course has no place in Wikipedia."[87]

Scandal section removed: WarlordJohnCarter

In February, Warlordjohncarter added some positive information to the page, along with a "Scandal" section, mentioning two lawsuits and his remarriage and divorce. Jebbrady promptly excised this section, with no edit summary or talk discussion.[88].

"The wolves were scattered": Wilburweber

In May of this year, Wilburweber made a large number of additions to the article, including both positive and negative claims. Jebbrady promptly pulled out the information about predictions that didn't come true, and Armstrong's divorce. When Wilburweber inquired on the Talk page about the "curious changes", Jebbrady responded at length, saying

"Because of the sensative religious beliefs involved in such an article--as is the case with any article having to do with Herbert W. Armstrong--the good faith assumption is tempered with a grain of salt, as the history of these Wikipedia articles is that they have been used as platforms for religious bigotry, slander, ax-grinding from excommunicated members of the WCG, unfairness, silly but damaging innuendo, and of course lack of sholarly professionalism. I've spent months battling and cleening them up. The version you felt the need to change had stood for eight months unchanged, unchallenged , and widely repected."

He went on to say that "If you have the time, and you wish to add citations to passages that are already there, I certainly encourage you to do so", inquired "Why did you not complain about the abscence of those positive things he was involved in? Why did you not feel inclined to put them in?", again compared this to a Britannica Mozart article, informed Wilburweber that

"If you want to address, and think you can prove, the presence of legitimate and clear pattern of endemic, widespread, legiitmate hypocracy of attitude in his life-- if you can find it somehow (I have not)--you better bring it here first, address it directly, and provide the very finest source material (i.e objective sources which does not include WCG ministers who wrote books to defend why they: 1) took the church mainstream after Armstrong's death and 2) personally hoarded the 1 billion dollars of tithes and offerings that came into church coffers between 1986 and 1991 rather that put money into the work (as did HWA) and the humantitarian projects Armstrong started). Wikipedia is not a platform for character assination and innuendo"

(ignoring the conflict between his last sentence and the end of the previous one), declare that "Whether the former or the latter was the underpinning motivation, this was taken to an extreme in the articles that were cleaned up in Novemeber and no form of that will be allowed to return, even to the smallest degree." He also stated that

"Wikipedia supported my efforts to eliminate the bigotry and, regardless of your intentions good or bad, we will not allow bigotry through unwarranted negativity and innuendo ("He married a woman 40 years his junior") to be slowly re-intoduced through a gradual process. The wolves were scattered before and they will be again."

and that "Actually, your most innocent "contribution" as you glowingly put it, is too make the article unessearily long by Wikipedia standards--really by any Enyclopedia standards in terms of necessity of contnent", continuing in that vein for a while, calling Wilburweber's edits "tangantile or superfluous" and "longwinded".[89] The previous diff spans 46 revisions, but they're all incremental changes to his response except for one mistaken self-revert in the middle.

Wilburweber defended his writing credentials and his lack of affiliation with Armstrong, and pointed out that Jebbrady had referred to the dispute as a "battle". When a IP third party chimed in complaining about the tack Wilburweber had taken, Wilbur again responded, triggering a long series of responses by Jebbrady, mostly retreading the same ground.[90]

"Put your seat belts on": Lisasmall

In July, User:Lisasmall found the article, started cleaning it up, and then started adding carefully-cited information about Armstrong's family. Jebbrady, editing as an IP, removed the changes (without reverting), re-introducing several typos that Lisasmall had fixed[91]. Lisasmall, seeing the anon "vandalizing" the article, undid the changes, but posted on talk to find out if there was a reason for removing cited facts. Jebbrady removed the information again[92], invoking WP:BLP on Talk and stating that:

"Editors ought to think twice before they present any unsubstantiated charges against the man in any article or discussion page here. Also be advised that citations of web sources without scholarly credentials, a practice not even accepted in American Universities (I know because I have degree in history), will be deleted from this article along with the antecedent text.

"Edits with an unprofessional, POV tone that try to overcome that by citing mainstream sources like Time magazine, a publication which--lets be frank--has a well known, easily observed political and social bias will be regarded in the same way. Citations are supposed to be sincere attempts to improve the credibility of an article and to ensure accuracy. To uses them disingenuously with an ax to grind is against everything that Wikipedia stands for and If I catch anyone doing it with any article relating to religion, including any article about Armstrong, I will immediately seek to get that editor blocked.

"If an editor wants to bring in material facts about a biographical subject that reveals or are legitimately suggestive of flaws in that person, it will be done in a respectful, even handed tone, mimicking the professionalism of Encyclopedia Britannica-- especially when it’s a religious figure like Herbert Armstrong who had beliefs that not everyone liked. It should be put in a separate section entitled “Controversy” or something like it. The building of that section will be along process so put you seat belts on...."[93]

I'm going to stop here for the time being, as this shows Jebbrady fighting the same battle with three different editors. I may continue the narrative later, focusing on the events I was involved in after Lisasmall asked me to step in from WP:ASSIST.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) (Diffs inline above. Should that text be down here?--SarekOfVulcan 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1) RelHistBuff requesting third party

Jebbrady calling it a "hail-mary", and ignoring the third party's recommendations

2) SarekOfVulcan opening an Article RFC

Jebbrady threatening to report me for lying in the RFC

Evidence of RelHistBuff trying and failing

My evidence of trying and failing consists mainly of discussion using the article talk pages first. Because Jebbrady used IP addresses for editing, I decided that the only way was to bring the discussion to the article talk page rather than a user talk page. When the discussion did not work, I brought in a third opinion. That did not work either. Please find below the evidence.

The first edits by jebbrady removed significant parts of text (a whole section in fact) (see here).

I first attempted to discuss the differences on the talk pages. I made initial attempts in October with a proper edit summary (see here).

This was reverted twice without edit summaries. Knowing the 3RR rule, I did not go further. I next attempted to bring the dispute to the talk page. I made several attempts using edit summaries and article talk page discussions (see here).

The dialogue on the talk page began as follows:

Jeb: (see here). This is his first recognition of my activities and he gives a long first response.

Rel: (see here). In a short response, I make here a proposal.

Jeb: (see here). Jeb does not like the proposal and make attacks.

Rel: (see here). I make a short but courteous response, trying to cooperate.

Jeb: (see here). He takes the proposal as an “insult to intelligence” and gives another long response.

Rel: (see here). I make another short but courteous response. I ask to build the article together.

Jeb: (see here). Still refuses again and gives another long response. It is clear, he does not want me to edit the article.

Rel: (see here). I note that everyone is entitled to edit articles. Again a short, polite response and again I make a proposal to work together.

While going through this discussion, one can see that Jeb provided long-winded responses and shows evidence of WP:OWN violation. I do not react strongly, but I am always courteous. However, I realized the exchange was not improving the situation, so I contacted a third opinion. The dialogue continues as follows:

THIRD: (see here). Proposes starting from my shorter (and older) text.

Jeb: (see here). Believes the third opinion is “staff” and tries to change subject.

THIRD: (see here). Explains third opinion position.

Jeb: (see here). Still objects to starting with the original October 27 version.

THIRD: (see here). Suggested any other approach.

Rel: (see here). I make a final offer (as there is no other option) and that is to start with Jeb’s text.

THIRD: (see here). Third opinion confirms it is a good offer.

Jeb: (see here). No response

Jeb: (see here). Here Jeb starts to edit the article talk page but gives no response to the proposal.

Jeb: (see here). On May 2007 he starts interactions with Wilburweber as described above by User:SarekOfVulcan.

Jeb has now completely ignored the third opinion, perhaps hoping that I will go away. Unfortunately, as my time is also valuable for other activities outside of Wikipedia, I did go away and I left the article to Jeb who obviously has more time to defend his point of view. --RelHistBuff 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Lisasmall trying and failing

Supporting evidence that I have tried and failed:

From my very first day of contact with Jebbrady, he has been spiteful and perverse, see his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. That ended any hope of being able to resolve issues through simple polite negotiation. He made a similar accusation on that talk page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff. He has impugned the good faith of nearly every editor who has worked with him.
I requested a WP:ASSIST here on July 21. It has not helped; he takes it as "recruitment" instead of help. Meanwhile, the editor who responded is the editor who has filed this RFC/U. SarekOfVulcan has made heroic efforts to try to work with Jebbrady to produce a comprehensive NPOV article; these efforts have failed. In addition to this RFC/U, Sarek filed an article RFC August 10. It has not helped, and inspired the bluster that Sarek noted in his own evidence for this RFC/U above. I list this among my own attempts and failures because I'm the one who brought Sarek in via the WP:ASSIST.
Jebbrady made a request to admin Jossi for a month to edit the article. Without prompting, I stepped back from editing so he would have a clear field (at least, a field without me on it). As a voluntary courtesy, I posted on the talk page July 24 and July 31 that I would disengage while he planned to work on a comprehensive re-write. I used the time to contribute elsewhere; Jebbrady spent the time violating WP:ICA with allegations that I spent it adopting new identities to bedevil him.[94][95] Since July 31, I have not edited the article at all, and I did not rejoin the talk page until August 17, where I learned that no progress at all had been made from July 21-August 17 even on something as simple as adding marriage and divorce data to a biographical article. Twelve editors (named below) over four weeks could not even persuade him that far.
I have filed two formal WP:SOCK reports (in addition to one informal intervention between the two, when I was assuming GF) and offer the records there into evidence here via this link to the second case and this link to the first case. He was also warned about vandalism at one of his sockpuppets in March, see here. That's four major interventions without genuine progress. (At one point, he started manually typing User:Jebbrady as a sig, but continued to disperse his edit history among three accounts via puppetry; see the SOCK reports for details). There have also been numerous attempts by editors to address this in his talk page and the article's talk page. The conduct continues and the only thing that stops him from returning to his puppets is when they are formally blocked.
Every step I have taken in accord with WP:DR has failed. Even before locating SarekOfVulcan for the ASSIST, I appealed to a third party who also made no progress (Andrevan). I located the editor who had requested the first WP:THIRD (RelHistBuff). Though he has gotten re-involved in the article due to my request, this too has failed. I emailed an admin who had been involved with Jebbrady earlier; though Jossi graciously got re-involved, their participation has produced no change so this was another attempt of mine to make progress via a third party which failed. Yet another third party (SurrogateSpook) came in via my WQA and their overture failed to get a response; another failure. That's four. Adding Sarek who came in via ASSIST is five. Add to these the formal THIRD requested by SarekOfVulcan (and Jebbrady's hostile response detailed by Sarek above) and the original THIRD from December of 2006, and that's seven formal and informal third party attempts to work with Jebbrady. There is no hope that additional third opinions will make a whit of difference.
I filed a WQA in July which details and diffs his behavior which I incorporate here as evidence here via the link in this sentence. In the month that the WQA remained open, six editors in addition to myself commented about their attempts to work with Jebbrady. These include MastCell, EdJohnston, IP User 24.6.65.83 (who is now Pairadox), SarekOfVulcan, RelHistBuff, and SurrogateSpook. Other editors and admins who didn't comment on the WQA but have tried to work with Jebbrady on the talk page with limited or no success this summer include: Andrevan, Jossi, Cadwallader, Preekout, and "Jere" (IP User jere 71.203.211.107). There were others who tried to get cooperation and consensus around March 2007 and October 2006, but who have apparently given up. As far as I know, all of us are experienced Wikipedians and none of the twelve of us have ever worked together on anything before. There is no conspiracy about, or animus towards, Jebbrady, Herbert W. Armstrong, or any religion. Several of these editors were initially involved, or were brought back in after prior involvement, by me as attempts to bring in neutral parties or parties experienced with Jebbrady and so I list the failure of resolution even after their hard work and patience among my failures.
In addition to ignoring, rejecting, or attacking the attempts at conflict resolution, Jebbrady has repeatedly violated these policies as supported in the WQA and repeated here to show you in brief what the dozen editors who have tried to work with him in the past six weeks have been up against: WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:EQ broadly and deeply; and WP:VERIFY, WP:NPA, WP:SKILL, WP:GF, WP:LAWYER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:ICA, all of which are easily proved by the evidentiary links in the WQA.
Also named in the WQA is WP:MEAT. As that is not as self-evident as the other accusations, this link to the evidence is given in the WQA so that a reviewer may draw their own conclusions and is offered as evidence in this RFC/U as well. Since then, another unusual editor appeared who was not part of the initial MEAT query. I have tried and failed to get explanation of the first apparent meatpuppetry through the SOCK reports. Though notified, Jebbrady did not respond.
Jebbrady has appeared to boycott all the formal conflict resolutions attempted. Though given due notice of every process, he does not take advantage of the formal opportunities to present his own case. He is openly hostile to the RfC's and THIRDs and ASSIST on the article's talk page (see Sarek's evidence above or anywhere on the page itself) and its two archives.
Counting conservatively, but counting informal as well as formal overtures: There have been four interventions regarding sockpuppetry. There have been seven third opinions. There have been twelve editors giving time and talent to working with him, with no change in his tone and no willingness to move on very basic issues. This has been going on for six weeks this summer, and for ten months if you go back to the first dispute.
To quote what RelHistBuff said in the WQA re the December 2006 third opinion: "...jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands." The evidence indicates that this state will continue unless firmer action is taken against the perpetrator. All my attempts at resolution have failed. All the attempts of others which I have witnessed have failed.
On request of the reviewers, I offer to go through the extremely long article talk pages and its archives and flag every violation of WP:CIVIL, etc. I respectfully hope this will not be needed and I could not get it done in the initial 48 hours of this RFC/U.

I hope this was the right place to present these links, diffs, and narrative. I affirm the evidence given by Sarek, who filed this RFC/U. I differ with Sarek only in what I think is the best outcome. I do not believe that Jebbrady can be rehabilitated and I believe a ban is the appropriate solution. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 20:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

My response is to address a specific item of the dispute which I feel is unjustified and injurious. It reflects poor taste for editor Lisasmall to list my participation in the discussion amongst her grievances against editor Jebbrady. I am incensed by the implication of a meatpuppetry violation on my part, which is the only apparent reason for her to mention my participation under point 8, regardless of the disclaimer that I was not part of a previous query. An implication that strong requires substantial proof, which is not presented here. I am a member in good standing and the singular comment I made on the discussion page can in no way be interpreted as a violation of this policy by someone who isn't twisting it to further their agenda, explicity or implicity. I would appreciate if all reference to my involvement removed from this RFC. If that is executed, I will remove this comment. Otherwise I am neutral on this RFC.Wesleyk 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Custerwest (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The article Battle of Washita River has been at the center of major content disputes since at least 26 June 2007, with related edit-warring and continual problems with personal attacks and incivility as well as refusal by some editors to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Custerwest has been central to these conflicts, as has been HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) who is also the subject of an RfC that we've prepared (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori). The conflict and mutual hostility particularly between Custerwest and HanzoHattori, as well as Custerwest's particular incivility and contempt for other editors who have not read the same sources he has, continue to be disruptive, not to mention highly unpleasant to anyone who might otherwise be interested in helping improve the article.

As a result of contentiousness and edit warring, the article has been fully protected since 1 July 2007. We believe that Custerwest is stonewalling efforts at resolving disputes and seeking consensus because the article is currently fully protected in a form preferred by him. He and HanzoHattori both declined an offer for informal mediation; this is our next step to attempting to resolve the dispute.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Basically the overall outcome we want is:

for Battle of Washita River to be unprotected;
a civil working environment at Battle of Washita River, its talk pages, and the user pages of involved editors, in which all editors are adhering to both content and personal conduct policies and true good-faith efforts to find and abide by consensus. Users simply have no business being Wikipedia editors otherwise.
Because of longstanding difficulties in getting either Custerwest or HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) (for whom we have also prepared an RfC) to abide by core policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, we would also like to have a written commitment at Talk:Battle of Washita River by each of them to read and adhere to these policies or; if not, to forgo working on the Battle of Washita River article, with a single-article ban per WP:BAN if necessary to enforce it.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

The first edit under the username Custerwest was made on 26 May 2007 (though there is strong evidence he also has used and occasionally still uses anonymous IPs to edit; see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) below). Most of his edits have been on Battle of Washita River and Talk:Battle of Washita River, or have been related to this article and talk page. Throughout his career with this article, he has tended to act without seeking consensus and has treated other editors with incivility, has engaged in edit warring and disruption and vandalism of noticeboards, and has resisted efforts to learn or abide by core Wikipedia content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. He has been the recipient of a 3RR block for edit warring and the subject of two WP:ANI reports (WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest and WP:ANI#The continuing saga of Custerwest).

While frequently proclaiming his status as an author published in French who has purportedly worked directly with historians at the Washita battlefield, and further claiming to have a website (a blog) whose members include historians, his scholarship has been faulty, with his use of sources has been characterized by sloppy and inaccurate citation, selective use of sources (cherrypicking) to push a particular point of view about the Washita and events surrounding it, mischaracterization of one source (Jerome Greene's history Washita: The U.S. Army and the Southern Cheyennes, 1867-1869) as the "official National Park Service" history of the Washita battle; at least one instance of falsifying a quotation, an instance of copyright violation, and COI citation of his eponymous blog website, which also includes numerous instances of copyright violation (unlicensed use of copyrighted materials from other websites, books, articles, etc.). He has made numerous claims of implied ownership of the article.

Custerwest's response to being blocked for 3RR violation on 30 Jun 2007 can be found on his talk page at User talk:Custerwest#vandal warning of 3RR report, which includes discussions with both WJBScribe, who declined Custerwest's request to be unblocked, and Akradecki, the blocking admin, about what had happened. Admins cited issues with Custerwest such including personal attacks and incivility, implied claim of ownership over the Battle of Washita River article, edit warring and the need for consensus, vandalism of noticeboards by deleting reports; neutral vs. POV terminology, and conflict of interest for linking to his blog as a source. Many of these issues continue to be a source of problems.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Personal attacks & incivility (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL)

Since 27 June 2007, Custerwest has frequently made personal attacks and demonstrated incivility and contempt for other editors working on Battle of Washita River in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, particularly when complaining about his perceptions of other editors' use (or nonuse) of sources, their perceived lack of knowledge about the battle, or their opinions of issues around it when at variance with his own. While his point about using actual sources is well-taken, his manner of making the point lacks is contentious and unpleasant, leading to further disruption and conflict. Custerwest appears to feel justified in making personal attacks or otherwise being uncivil and contemptuous toward other editors for this alone. Custerwest especially shares a strong mutual hostility with HanzoHattori (talk · contribs); this enmity began with personal attacks made by Custerwest on HanzoHattori which combined contempt about HH's sources with namecalling. Both have continued to engage in personal attacks on one another.

Direct personal attacks

16:25 27 Jun 2007 - "I wonder who's the idiot who's editing the page..." (directed at no one in particular)
16:28 27 Jun 2007 - "What are your sources for the Battle of the Washita ? Why have you taken all the footnotes off ? I put several historical sources with footnotes and you have erased everything. What kind of jerk are you ?" (directed at HanzoHattori)
18:39 27 Jun 2007 - "Damn your head, jackass, your article is totally biased, with no footnotes and no facts on the battle itself. I spend time putting footnotes and quotes by historians, and you're erasing anything. If you were in front of me, I would kick your damn ass of ignorant monkey. You are just a damn idiot - and a very, very young one, for sure. Some damn kid with no interest in anything. You put the Washita in the Comanche campaign, stupid bastard ! Damn, you're so silly. Let the adults poot books and facts and go to McDonalds." (directed at HanzoHattori)
18:52 27 Jun 2007 - "...Are you an editor, interested in history of the battle, or just a troll?..." (directed at HanzoHattori)
15:24 28 Jun 2007 - "...Is extreme leftist ideology accepted on Wikipedia?...Who's this clown?..." (directed at HanzoHattori)
23:42, 29 June 2007 "Troll." (directed at HanzoHattori). Resulted in Yksin making an AIV report for personal attack after final warning; see #Disrupting Wikipedia reporting processes (WP:VANDAL) below.
12:35 20 Jul 2007 - "...Most of the editors here are really tiresome and are not adding anything, especially HanzoHattori..." "...Yskin and me could find a consensus, an historical one. The others a really useless, for they haven't read anything on the matter." (response to User:Phaedriel's offer of informal mediation)
18:15 29 Jul 2007 "That's why I find HHT's fanatical crusade against me boring but perhaps a little amusing. And SO pathetic. Sorry, buddy, but for me, you're nothing, I am not interested at all by your life or deeds." At 18:16 added to above comment, "You remember me Captain Benteen with Custer. Pathetic, fanatical, but eventually terrible loser." (directed at HanzoHattori, responding to comments actually written by User:Felix c)

Other incivility (by no means comprehensive)

18:46, 27 June 2007 - "My God, it's the worse example of ignorance I've ever seen. People are STUDYING the battle with primary sources. Do you know what historian means ? Members of my website are historians and doctors in history. I've written a book myself. I was putting footnotes and original quotes and you deleted all with nonsense like "Comanche campaign". It's totally false. You have but a website, made by people who just gathered what they heard about the battle. It's not a serious work. It's not a work of historian. Where are your footnotes ? Your real work ? Your quotes ? You even didn't say anything about Black Kettle's white captives. Do you know what you're talking about ? Surely no. If Wikipedia editors are like you, the credibility of the whole encyclopedia drops."
22:50, 29 June 2007 - "This kind of statement "I strongly doubt that Hoig, Greene, Michno are as imbalanced as Custerwest's selective sourcing from them would indicate." is incredible. READ THE ARTICLES, some are online ! Has anyone here read something on the battle ? I mean, beside website checked out three minutes before coming to Wiki and making amazingly arrogant comment on researchs you don't know a clue about? What's obvious is that none of you have read Michno, Hoig or Greene. It's just talks without any proof except HHT ongoing researchs on the WEb, picking every website up and quoting it as "the definitive source". Has any of you read primary sources? Has any of you, especially Yrin and HHT (Murder... is doing a very good job), read something on the battle? It's amazing that historical researchs are attacked with websites, self-opinions etc. Is that an encyclopedia or a political meeting?"
23:01, 29 June 2007 - (Re: HanzoHattori's preferred source): "It's by far the weakest, most unreliable source we can find - but who care, uh? I don't see anybody here who knows a little about the battle and I don't see a lot of folks doing their job by editing a correct article based on reliable sources, historical material. Incredible. Can we made an article by adults, with footnotes and historical sources, or must we accept like gospel every website we can find? Do you know the word HISTORIAN? Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, which sponsored Greene's book? Incredible. And it's an encyclopedia, edited by people who don't read the sources but who comment them. Amazing. What a joke."
01:01, 30 June 2007 - "Read a book on the Washita - that's the subject of my editing, all the sources I posted (where are yours?)... And this whole, useless warfare with editors who don't know the subject but change facts (HanzoHattori even put the campaign under the "Comanche Campaigns")... Can this article be serious ? Can we discuss sources?"

Edit warring (WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE)

3RR violation, 29-30 Jun 2007

23:53 29 Jun 2007 - "killed" to "murdered" after rmv
23:56, 29 June 2007 - "killed" to "murdered"
00:02, 30 June 2007 - "killed" to "executed"
00:31, 30 June 2007 - "killed" to "executed"

The above edits resulted in a 24-hour block for violation of WP:3RR.

Removing neutrality template

15:29, 28 June 2007
13:39, 29 June 2007 as anonymous IP User:134.21.9.183 (see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) below)
19:47, 29 June 2007 as anonymous IP User:83.78.46.254 (see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) below)
20:07, 29 June 2007
09:21, 1 July 2007
10:23, 1 July 2007
10:31, 1 July 2007
17:50, 1 July 2007 as anonymous IP User:83.78.61.58 (see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) below)
18:00, 1 July 2007

Note that the reverts on 1 July 2007 were part of the general edit war (the entire article reverting back & forth), also involving HanzoHattori, Biophys, and Murderbike, which resulted in a 3RR block of HanzoHattori and, later, in the article being fully protected. This edit war commenced shortly after Custerwest's 24-hour block from the day before ended.

Disrupting Wikipedia reporting processes (WP:VANDAL)

On 29-30 Jun 2007, Yksin made an AIV report of Custerwest for making a personal attack against HanzoHattori after the last warning. Simultaneously, Murderbike made a report of a 3RR violation. Custerwest deleted both reports, replacing them with misplaced or spurious reports of his own. This resulted in both Yksin and Murderbike having to make additional reports in order to finally get resolution to the problem. Ultimately, Custerwest was given a 24-hour block for the 3RR violation. The following diffs in chronological order give the sequence of the main events, which took place over the course of about an hour and a half -- a notable effort at disrupting Wikipedia reporting processes.

Yksin: 23:49 at WP:AIV - makes report of personal attack after last warning for Custerwest's personal attack on HanzoHattori ("troll") (see "Personal attacks & incivility, above). Updates report at 23:55 to state that Custerwest had also deleted warnings from his talk page.
Murderbike: 23:58 at Talk:Battle of Washita River - explains to Custerwest why "killed" is preferable to "murdered" as an NPOV term in article
Murderbike: 00:05 at User talk:Custerwest - after Custerwest's third reversion to disputed term ("murdered" or "executed" replacing NPOV term "killed"; see "Edit warring" above), Murderbike tells Custerwest that he is now in violation of 3RR and will be reported.
Custerwest: 00:20 at WP:AIV - deletes Yksin's valid AIV report re: Custerwest making personal attacks after last warning; replaces with his own spurious AIV report, which he signs in his next edit.
Murderbike: 00:21 at WP:AN/3RR - made 3RR report about Custerwest after the third revert (see above).
Custerwest: 00:26 at WP:AN/3RR - deletes Murderbike's 3RR report; at 00:27 deletes the remainder of it
Yksin: 00:28 at WP:AIV - replaces AIV report that Custerwest deleted at 00:20, adding info that Custerwest deleted her prior report
00:32 at WP:AIV - Murderbike reports Custerwest's deletion of his 3RR report; addendum to report at 00:47
Murderbike: 00:34 at WP:AN/3RR - complains that Custerwest deleted his 3RR report and also that Custerwest made a fourth revert
Custerwest: 00:38 at WP:AN/3RR - makes his own undocumented complaint of 3RR, asks for protection of the article, and also makes an implied claim ownership of the article (see below)
MichaelLinnear: 00:40 at WP:AN/3RR - verifies that Custerwest deleted Murderbike's 3RR report
Custerwest: 00:48 at WP:AIV - makes spurious vandalism claim and request for article protection in response to Murderbike reporting Custerwest's deletion of the 3RR report; also statements indicating a seeming claim of ownership over the article
WJBscribe: 00:52 at WP:AIV - deletes all relevant AIV reports, both valid and spurious, stating "Lets keep this for reporting straight forward vandalism please."
Bobblehead: 00:53 at WP:AN/3RR - deletes Custerwest's complaint as an improperly located protection request, with edit summary giving correct location to make protection requests
Yksin: 00:56 at WP:ANI The continuing saga of Custerwest re: Custerwest's deletion of AIV & 3RR reports and events at WP:AIV
Custerwest: 00:57 at WP:AN/3RR - accuses Murderbike of removing his complaint
MichaelLinnear: 00:59 at WP:AN/3RR - tells Custerwest it was Bobblehead who removed his complaint
Murderbike and Yksin: 1:07-1:12 at User talk:WJBScribe - discussion with WJBScribe re: deletion of AIV reports, seeking help to resolve problems with Custerwest for which he had been reported
Akradecki: 01:17 at WP:AN/3RR - puts 24-hour block on Custerwest
WJBscribe: 01:19 at WP:AN/3RR - restores 3RR report made by Murderbike that Custerwest had deleted; then records result of complaint. WJBScribe subsequently let Yksin and Murderbike know at WP:ANI and his talk page the outcome of events.

Custerwest's response to being blocked for 3RR violation can be found on his talk page at User talk:Custerwest#vandal warning of 3RR report, which includes discussions with both WJBScribe, who declined Custerwest's request to be unblocked, and Akradecki, the blocking admin, about what had happened. Admins specifically cited Custerwest's deletion of reports from noticeboards as vandalism.

Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK)

Until recently, Custerwest appears to have done the majority of his edits using anonymous IPs, apparently not deciding it desirable to have a permanent username until 26 May 2007, when the first edit as Custerwest was made. Below is a list of probably Custerwest-user anonymous IPs and edits. Note that a WHOIS check on all of these anonymous IPs shows that all are based in Switzerland, from either at Universite de Fribourg or the Swiss Internet provider Bluewin, except for one edit from an IP at the Swiss federal government in Berne. With the exception of the almost all edits from the Berne IP and one edit (134.21.9.183's edit of Bernardo Bertolucci), all edits to date made by these anon IPs are to articles related to Custer or Black Kettle (George Armstrong Custer, Black Kettle, Sand Creek Massacre, Battle of Washita River, Battle of the Little Big Horn, related talk pages, user talk pages about these articles, etc.).

We don't feel we prove here that Custerwest intentionally used anonymous IP for illegitimate sockpuppetry (though two questionable incidents are documented near the end of this section). However, we do feel it's proven as best as it can be without a Checkuser that all or most of the anonymous IP edits discussed were made by Custerwest, and we treat them as Custerwest edits througout this RfC.

134.21.201.167 (talk · contribs · count) - 11 Nov 2005 (2 edits), IP from Universite de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.201.179 (talk · contribs · count) - 15 Nov 2005 to 26 Jan 2006 (8 edits), IP from Universite de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.202.175 (talk · contribs · count) - 1 Feb 2006 (34 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.176 (talk · contribs · count) - 23 May 2006 (1 edit), IP from Universite de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.165 (talk · contribs · count) - 7 Nov 2006 (7 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.163 (talk · contribs · count) - 10 Nov 2006 (6 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.178 (talk · contribs · count) - 12 Mar 2007 (5 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.183 (talk · contribs · count) - 26 Mar to 29 Jun 2007 (20 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.180 (talk · contribs · count) - 4 Apr to 12 Jun 2007 (32 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
83.79.37.103 (talk · contribs · count) - 26 May 2007 (1 edit), IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider
134.21.9.164 (talk · contribs · count) - 6 Jun 2007 (2 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.181 (talk · contribs · count) - 13 to 18 Jun 2007 (6 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
134.21.9.167 (talk · contribs · count) - 27 Jun 2007 (2 edits), IP from University de Fribourg, Switzerland
83.78.3.67 (talk · contribs · count) - 1 July 2007 (1 edit), IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider
Custerwest (talk · contribs · count) - 26 May to 1 Jul 2007 (314 edits to date)
83.78.46.254 (talk · contribs · count) - 29 Jun 2007 (2 edits), IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider
83.78.3.67 (talk · contribs · count) - 1 July 2007 (1 edit), IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider
83.78.60.34 (talk · contribs · count) - 1 July 2007 (3 edits), IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider
193.5.216.100 (talk · contribs · count) - 10 May 2005 to 10 Jul 2007 (~278 edits on multiple topics), IP from Swiss Federal Government in Berne. Only this edit is believed to be a CW edit.

Proof that Custerwest is the responsible for at least some of these anon IP edits:

26 May 2007. unsigned edit by 83.79.37.103 on Talk:Battle of Washita River on the the topic of "Fall" citing an entry on custer.over-blog.com. The very next edit made & signed by Custerwest expands the same comment. 83.79.37.103 is an IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider.
6 Jun 2007. Two successive unsigned edits on Talk:Battle of Washita River under the topic "White captives" made here and here by 134.21.9.164 (an IP of U. de Fribourg). The next two immediately following edits here and here, both made by Custerwest, were modifications of the same comment. Custerwest signed on the last edit.
1 Jul 2007. edit by 83.78.3.67 of the article; Custerwest identified himself as the person who made this edit here, on HanzoHattori's talk page. 83.78.3.67 is an IP from Bluewin, a Swiss Internet provider. (Note that HanzoHattori's complaints on 1 July 2007 that Custerwest had returned as an anonymous IP,[96][97] while true, did not prove an attempt by Custerwest to evade his 24-hour block. His block had expired; he merely forgot to log in before editing.)

In most cases it appears that the use of an anonymous IP was nonproblematic -- either predating the creation of the Custerwest username, or because Custerwest forgot to log in before editing. However, there are two possible concerns:

On 1 July 2007, there was a major edit war on the Battle of Washita River article, and it is at least possible that the three edits made by User:83.78.60.34 [98], [99], and [100] -- and particularly the one edit made by User:83.78.61.58 -- [101] -- were intentional uses of anonymous IPs as sockpuppets during this edit war. On the other hand, the pattern of edits also suggests the possibility that Custerwest simply forgot to log in from the computer he was using prior to editing.
The Berne government IP edit on 09:35, 10 July 2007 to Talk:Battle of Washita River was thought by Yksin to possibly have been a sockpuppet use in order to present an appearance of support from a second user for Custerwest's views; see Yksin's post.

Disinterest in consensus (WP:CONS)

Consensus, or rather its lack, has been a serious issue for the Battle of the Washita article since at least 27 Jun 2007, when Custerwest began editing the article in earnest, making little or no effort to establish consensus. Edit warring was the result, with Custerwest receiving a 24-hour 3RR block on 30 Jun 2007 and HanzoHattori receiving a 72-hour block on the following day, which was removed early by blocking admin Maxim after disputes that continued even without HanzoHattori continued such that Maxim put the article on full protection. The article has been on full protection since 1 July except for a brief period on 8 July after the first block expired; Maxim then put it on indefinite full protection.

Custerwest made some effort to work with other editors after his block expired on 1 July 2007; see Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Common ground?, but didn't find much success because of having reverted the article to his preferred version as soon as he recommenced editing -- seeking "common ground" only after, rather than before, his revert. Several times he removed the {{tl:totallydisputed}} tag (see #Edit warring (WP:3RR) and Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Totally disputed, in spite of ongoing disagreement between him and other editors, asserting, "How many users have read the sources I put ? It's a dispute between me and my sources, and you and your opinion" [102] (note the implied assertion of article ownership). He told Murderbike on 29 Jun 2007, "I don't know why the 'neutrality' tag is put on the page because HanzoHattori, despite his arrogance and his constant attacks, didn't have any historical material against what I put on the page. My sources are serious, I put pages, footnotes, comments by historians. HanzoHattori put nothing serious or even acceptable by historians." [103]

Custerwest's attitude about consensus can perhaps be best summarized by his reply to admin WJBscribe after WJBscribe declined his appeal to be unblocked: "Consensus with who? The 3RR was made by someone who didn't know the story he/she was talking about. It was an historical inaccuracy. I just see that Wikipedia is working for the innacuracies and falsehoods. Congratulations."[104] And later, "So Wikipedia doesn't stand for facts, but for opinions and consensus of opinions (even false one without evidences) on historical facts? Is that what you're saying?"[105]

Claim or implied claim of ownership of article (WP:OWN)

30 Jun 2007 - "90% of the sources posted there were posted by me"; "member of http://www.custerwest.org that gave 95% of the primary sources and historical references to the article on the Washita"
30 Jun 2007 - "95% of the sources posted on Washita, based on reliable sources, were posted by me (I am author of historical books and member of an historical portal with historians" (which is actually a blog)
30 Jun 2007 - similar to above, in WP:RFPP
30 Jun 2007 - similar to above, on his own talk page
30 Jun 2007 - more of the same, this time in response for being blocked for 3RR violation
30 Jun 2007 - " I put every one of the quotes, books, historical material that can be found on the Battle of the Washita..." -- continued argument re: 3RR block
16 Jul 2007 - "I have put 99% of the footnotes on the Washita page, I think those are reliable sources. Where are yours?" Note that at this point, the article had been under full protection after an edit war in a form favored by Custerwest for over two weeks (since July 1, except for a brief period unprotected on July 8), so no other editor had opportunity to place footnotes.

General NPOV and NOR issues (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SOAP)

Custerwest in general appears to consider the Battle of Washita River article as a soapbox to promote a particular point of view about the Washita event and people involved with it. Literature about the event demonstrates that there are a number of controversies even to this day about the event and its causes: for example, is it best categorized as a "battle" or as a "massacre"? Was Black Kettle personally responsible for the raiding of white settlements in Kansas that led to Sheridan's "total war" policy that directed Custer to the Washita, or was he truly a "peace chief"? Were Clara Blinn and her two-year-old son Willie or other white captives held in Black Kettle's camp, or not? Were people in Black Kettle's camp responsible for the deaths of the Blinns? Custer reported having killed 103 warriors and an unknown number of women and children in the battle; Cheyenne estimates were much lower (11 to 20 men; as many as 25 women and children); other estimates fall in between -- who is right? Custerwest has firm opinions on most of these questions -- according to him, it was a battle, Black Kettle was guilty of the raid, Black Kettle's camp held the Blinns as well as other captives, and not only killed but outright executed/murdered the Blinns, and Custer's report of Indian casualties was without question correct. These are Custerwest's opinions, based by and large on published sources that meet Wikipedia standards for reliability (once Custerwest gets away from citing his own blog). However, as stated, reliable published sources also demonstrate the controversiality of each of these claims, and in all cases there is as much or even more evidence that contradicts Custerwest's conclusions as supports them.

Our position is that it's not our place to decide which of the views on any of these matters is "true," but rather to follow Wikipedia policies which state unequivocally that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). (quoted from WP:NPOV). That is, we maintain that the views and conclusions promoted by Custerwest and his sources need to be represented in the article, but so do views and conclusions which contradict those favored by Custerwest. As NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, this is not an option: it is an absolute requirement.

Despite numerous efforts to explain Wikipedia's NPOV policy to Custerwest (see #NPOV and NOR below), Custerwest consistently attempts to prove his facts as the "correct" historical understanding, and our facts as wrong. We have seen no evidence that Custerwest has made any attempt to learn or understand what WP:NPOV means or how to work with it. Rather, it appears that he wishes to use the Battle of Washita River article as an extension of his blog (for more on his blog, see #Conflict of interest; linkspam (WP:COI, WP:SPAM); link to website containing unlicensed copyrighted material (WP:LINKS) below). His methods have included selective use of sources (cherrypicking), redaction of quotes, at least one instance of falsifying a quote, and an instance of copyright violation. He has frequently challenged other editors to read books or other sources on the battle (usually in a scornful, uncivil manner); but when other editors acquire and read the same sources he uses and find information that contradicts his opinions -- because of course most of the literature on Washita recognizes that the primary sources contradict one another -- he simply ignores the information we present or continues to assert its wrongness, based on nothing other than his opinion of which facts in the selfsame book are correct and which are wrong -- i.e., he resorts to original research.

Two examples of Custerwest's methods of original research and refusal to learn or abide by WP:NPOV:

Comanche campaign. Custerwest has complained several times (frequently with accompanying incivility) about other editors' use of {{Campaignbox_Comanche_Campaign}} ([106], [107], [108], [109], [110]) and removed the campaign box from the article. As HanzoHattori wrote on 27 Jun, "Comanche Campaign is the long-standing and appearently official name of the conflic[t], and I have even nothing to do with it"[111] and on at least one later occasions pointed out the article Comanche Campaign for further information ([112] provides a link to an Army Center of Military History document entitled "Named Campaigns - Indian Wars" which verifies that the U.S. Army's official name for the military campaigns of 1867 to 1875 against Indian bands -- Southern Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache-Kiowa -- in the Southern Plains region covered by the Army's Department of the Missouri commanded by Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan was called the Comanche campaign. This named campaign is considered by the U.S. Army specifically to include the Battle of Washita River. While there are undoubtedly other names that can be given to the Sheridan's campaign against the Southern Cheyenne -- "Southern Cheyenne Campaign" being one -- HanzoHattori is correct in stating "Comanche Campaign" as being a designator officially used by the U.S. Army through to the present. It does not appear that Custerwest has ever checked this fact, but merely made claims that "Comanche Campaign" was incorrect based upon his own limited POV and opinion, in violation of WP:NOR.
Clara & Willie Blinn. On 12 Jun 2007, Custerwest asserts -- using his eponymous blog as a source -- that "iss Blinn and her child were discovered by the men of 19th Kansas near the location where Black Kettle had been killed, according to 7th cavalry members." On 29 Jun 2007, Custerwest appeals to sources, stating "Clara Blinn's story is true to the core (see Greene, Utley, Frost, Brill etc.). HanzoHattori finds a reliable source (Bvt. Maj. Gen. Hazen) stating the Blinns were with Arapahoes and that they were at the point of rescue when the battle took place. Custerwest's response: "Here we go. An other outstanding lie, with no source. Clara Blinn was scalped, as well as her son. They were discovered by the 19th Kansas some yards near Black Kettle's body location. They were both murdered by the Cheyennes." Note that HanzoHattori did give a source. Using Jerome Green's book (a favorite source of Custerwest's) Yksin finds a wealth of information contradicting Custerwest's POV, including Greene's statement, "Besides these unsubstantiated references to whites in Black Kettle's village, some postaction accounts confusingly promoted the belief that Clara Blinn and her child were present there at the time of the engagement. Nearly all of these insinuate that the Blinns' remains were found in or near Black Kettle's village. Contemporary accounts, however, place the discovery of their bodies downstream from the scene of Custer's attack, removed even from the area of Elliot's action, with most reporting that they were found in the vicinity of the former Kiowa village." Yksin goes on to say that Greene's point elucidates several conflicting claims about which Indians held the Blinns captive -- Cheyenne, Arapaho, or Kiowa -- and where they died, and concludes this portion of her post saying "In any case, an NPOV account will provide well-sourced information from all the conflicting accounts, & again will let the reader evaluate for themselves." Custerwest's reply asserts, "Yes Jerome Greene's book is good, but some points are very controversial, even not logical at all. For example, he doesn't want to trust anyone who talks about white captives altough we have testimonies about finding the Blinns near Black Kettle's body...." Yksin replies, pointing out that "Both Greene & Hoig discuss a number of different accounts from various witnesses (giving citations) about alleged white captives in Black Kettle's camp, including Clara Blinn & her son. Hoig's discussion is missing significant statements by Ft. Cobb commander Hazen & by Custer's chief of scouts Ben Clark that place Blinn in an Arapaho camp at the time of the attack on Black Kettle's camp; but otherwise both are very thorough in representing each different account. Which is exactly what we should be doing." Custerwest made no reply to this lengthy post written on 16 July 2007; but eventually wrote on 29 July with the assertion that "Unlike what some have said about the Blinns, evidently to make the Cheyennes look innocent, Clara and Willie were found near the location of Black Kettle's bodies by men from the 19th Kansas. The soldiers and officers who found the bodies made clear that it was on the Washita battlefield." Although this assertion is unsourced, there are contemporary sources which claim this; but again, most contemporary sources cited by both Hoig and Greene, including Custer and Sheridan and some eyewitnesses from the Nineteenth Kansas (the unit that found the Blinns' bodies) state that the bodies were found in an abandoned Indian camp several miles downriver from Black Kettle's camp. Again, we maintain that both theories (and any other significant views found in reliable sources) must be represented in the article to meet WP:NPOV. Custerwest, however, is uninterested in a balanced NPOV account.

Returning for a moment to Custerwest's 29 Jun 2007 appeal to sources, where he says "Clara Blinn's story is true to the core (see Greene, Utley, Frost, Brill etc.) -- we've already discovered what Greene says about the Blinns. Robert M. Utley, in his Custer biography Cavalier in Bucksin (revised edition) writes on p. 71 regarding the discovery of the Blinns' bodies two weeks after the battle, "Downstream [from Black Kettle's camp], the officers inspected the other village sites.... In one some troopers found the body of a white woman and her child, obviously killed when the soldiers attacked the Cheyenne camp upstream.... The woman was Mrs. Clara Blinn, seized by Arapahoes in October on the Arkansas River in Colorado." Utley goes on to explain that Custer and Sheridan believed the Blinns had been held captive and killed by Kiowas. Charles J. Brill's book (Custer, Black Kettle, and the Fight on the Washita) makes no reference to the Blinns. If by "Frost" Custerwest means Lawrence A. Frost's The Custer Album: A Pictorial Biography of General George A. Custer, well -- the Blinns aren't mentioned in that either. They are mentioned in another favorite Custerwest book, Stan Hoig's The Battle of the Washita, and as already stated, does not give a single answer about the Blinns, but rather details the several conflicting accounts. Clearly, Custerwest's sources are only unreserved in their support of Custerwest's conclusions when no one but Custerwest reads them.

We could provide similar accounts of Custerwest's less than scrupulous scholarship and reluctance to abide by NPOV standards for the other issues of controversy. Please excuse us if we don't go into such detail. See the talk pages (Talk:Battle of Washita River and Archive 1 and Archive 2 and #NPOV and NOR below for further details.

The only statement we can find of Custerwest's regarding NPOV is this, on 15 July 2007: "What's really at stake here is that the so-called 'neutral' point of view should include every opinion on the battle without question. If the Cheyennes said they were innocent, we have to say it, even if it isn't supported by any evidence." To which Yksin replied:, "Yes, if the Cheyennes said they were innocent, we have to say it, as long as their claim has been published by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. But, to maintain neutral POV, we also have to include claims that state the opposite, so long as those claims are found in reliable published sources.... We can also question any claim, but only if we do so through use of a published reliable source. But it is absolutely against Wikipedia policies for us -- any of us, regardless of what our personal opinions are -- to leave significant views out of an article based solely on our own personal evaluation of which evidence is 'right' or which evidence is 'wrong.'" Custerwest has not responded.

Manipulation & selective use of sources to promote POV (WP:NPOV)

On 15:42, 28 June 2007, Custerwest added a quote from Wynkoop's interview with Little Rock regarding raids by Cheyenne in white settlements along the Solomon and Saline rivers, making heavy use of ellipses. Yksin copyedited the quote and filled it out on 07:45, 29 June 2007. Yksin's discussion of how ellipses were used to replace text in order to make the quotation more fully support Custerwest's POV is found at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Custerwest's use of sources: two examples. Custerwest's explanation for his heavy redaction of the quotation was that "Little Rock's whole testimony is a three-pages accounts of the massacres caused by the Cheyennes. I cut some parts to not make the article look too heavy (Wikipedia policy to have short and readable articles)." It's undoubtedly a matter of POV about how much Custerwest's redaction of the quotation changed its meaning, but we maintain that it is evidence of Custerwest's overall method of cherrypicking data to promote a particular point of view about the causes and significance of the Battle of the Washita.

Copyright violation (WP:COPY)

On 15:29, 28 June 2007, Custerwest made a large edit to Battle of Washita River which included a lengthy quotation, not marked as a quotation, from an online article by Gregory Michno at Historynet.com. The copyvio was discovered by Yksin on 17 Jul 2007; it is detailed at Talk:Battle of Washita River#October to November, 1868 and at User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 45#Battle of Washita River. Because the article was under full protection, only an admin could remove the copyvio; this was accomplished by Phaedriel on 19:37, 18 July 2007. To date, Custerwest has made no explanation or any other response to discovery of this copyright violation.

Falsification of quoted source (WP:VERIFY)

On 14:59, 29 June 2007 editing as anonymous IP User:134.21.9.183 Custerwest added a footnote which included a quotation from a book by Stan Hoig. (Note: proof that Custerwest has used this and a series of other anonymous IPs located in Switzerland to make edits can be found at #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) above.) On 17 July 2007, Yksin discovered that the quotation had been modified by adding words that didn't appear in the original quotation and changing word order. This is in addition to Custerwest's practice of using ellipses in place of text that would counter the POV about events described in the article that Custerwest wishes to promote. Custerwest's modification/manipulation of the source is fully documented at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Footnote 17. This footnote was part of the text deleted by Phaedriel on 19:37, 18 July 2007 when she removed Custerwest's copyright violation. To date, Custerwest has made no explanation or any other response to discovery of this dishonest manipulation of the source text.

Inaccurate citations (WP:VERIFY)

On 11 July 2007, Yksin attempted to verify figures for Cheyenne casualties from edits made by Custerwest. Finding that the page numbers given did not verify the casualty figures given, Yksin suggested changes. See discussion at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Cheyenne strength in Black Kettle's village. In his reply at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Amateur?, Custerwest referred to Yksin as an "amateur" and provided quotes verifying the figures he'd given -- but based on different pages than what he'd previously given. Yksin responded that "Proper citation style means that if a fact that you are sourcing is given on page 103, you should cite page 103, not p. 111."
Yksin found a similar case of sloppy citation on 17 July 2007, this time involving the modified footnote discussed above (#Falsification of quoted source (WP:VERIFY). Besides being dishonestly modified, the page in the source given was wrong (Custerwest gave p. 212, whereas the quote actually was from pp. 249-250). See discussion at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Footnote 17.
Another such instance was found by Murderbike on 21 July 2007; see Talk:Battle of Washita River#The accounts of the battle. In this case, a fact cited to p. 146 in Stan Hoig's book had nothing whatsoever about the facts referred to; rather, we found part of the info verifying the facts given on p. 124, part on page 155.

This wouldn't be quite so bothersome -- after all, people make mistakes -- were in not for other problems found in Custerwest's use of sources, such as the "Footnote 17" example of rewriting a quote to suit his own POV, his selective use of sources to suit POV, and forays into original research. Along with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, Verification is one of Wikipedia's three central content policies, and our experience is proving that doing the footwork of verifying facts is doubly important for Custerwest's edits. His inaccurate citations gives a strong appearance of him not having kept good notes and merely throwing page numbers out there without doublechecking his own work before making the edits -- pretty ironic given Custerwest's frequent claims about having written a book[113] and doing "researchs on with Chief Historian Mary Davis and others"[114], and scathing criticism of other editors for not having sources[115] or referring to someone as an "amateur"[116] because that person did not find facts on the page Custerwest said they were to be found on because he gave the wrong page numbers.

Note that all of these citation errors are still in the article because the article has been protected since 1 July 2007 (except for a brief period on 8 July).

Custerwest's only acknowledgment of the inaccuracy with which he cites his sources was on 20 July 2007 -- "While I agree that two of my quotes had not their right footnotes (I spent most of my time preventing Hanzo Hattori's vandalism)..."

Conflict of interest; linkspam (WP:COI, WP:SPAM); link to website containing unlicensed copyrighted material (WP:LINKS)

Under the Custerwest user ID and, prior to that, one of his most frequently used anonoymous IPs, User:134.21.9.180, Custerwest has added links to his Youtube videos and his eponymous Custerwest blog (custerwest.org and custer.over-blog.com) to at least three articles, both as external links (in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI) and as reference citations (in violation of WP:COI). Custerwest now seems to be aware that his blog is not regarded as a reliable source under WP:VERIFY, but still has added it as an external link to at least Battle of Washita River, Battle of the Little Bighorn, and George Armstrong Custer. WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided recommends avoiding links to "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" as well as "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Accuracy and NPOV of Custerwest's blog has been disputed by other Battle of Washita River editors. See Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Custerwest's use of sources: two examples for a discussion of a problematic "article" on Custerwest's website.

This "article" is actually a lengthy excerpt, in apparent violation of copyright, of an article by Gregory Michno at Historynet.org -- the same article at issue in the copyright violation incident described above (see #Copyright violation (WP:COPY)). Other "articles" at custerwest.org also appear to be long excerpts or possibly even full articles copied from copyrighted articles and book chapters. Per WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking, without exception "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." There is no evidence at Custerwest's blog site that he has licensed the copyrighted articles he excerpts on his website; hence, in no case should his blog be linked to from Wikipedia.

As of this writing, Yksin has removed external links and reference links to the blog from Battle of the Little Bighorn ([117] and [118]) and from George Armstrong Custer ([119]) and has requested an admin to remove such links from Battle of Washita River [120] (which is still fully protected).

To Battle of Washita River: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], 30 Jun 2007 (note the implied claim of ownership of article in the edit summary), [132], [133], [134]
To George Armstrong Custer: [135], [136], [137], [138], (and another, 24 Aug 2007)
To Battle of the Little Bighorn: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151] [152], [153], (despite all this, yet another coi link attempt}

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

No personal attacks (WP:NPA)
Civility (WP:CIVIL)
Three-revert rule (WP:3RR)
Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE)
Vandalism (WP:VANDAL)
Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)
Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)
Consensus (WP:CONS)
Ownership of articles (WP:OWN)
No original research (WP:NOR)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP)
Copyrights (WP:COPY)
Verifiability (WP:VERIFY)
Conflict of interest (WP:COI)
Spam (WP:SPAM)
External links, especially WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided and WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Personal attacks & incivility

27-29 Jun 2007 warnings

Yksin: 22:04, 27 June 2007 - first warning against making personal attacks, using template
Yksin: 22:10, 27 June 2007 - personal warning (not using template) against making personal attacks, also pointing out that personal attacks are disallowed even in response to personal attacks from another.
Yksin: 00:04, 28 June 2007 - notifying Custerwest of discussion opened at WP:ANI; while notification did not itself warn against personal attacks, the WP:ANI discussion started by Yksin discussed this issue; see WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest
Yksin: 16:30, 28 June 2007 - Final (fourth-level) warning (using template) about making personal attacks.
Murderbike: 20:10, 29 June 2007 - request to both Custerwest and HanzoHattori not to use his (Murderbike's) talk page to insult each other, and to be civil

Response to warnings 13:44, 29 June 2007 - "Yskin, sorry, I thought you were a serious contributor to the Wikipedia encyclopedia, but you seem to be another HanzoHattori's friend. Do you have any source for the Washita?" At his next edit of his talk page at 14:23, Custerwest deleted the personal attack warning and his response to it. Another psersonal attack on HanzoHattori on 23:42, 29 June 2007 resulted in Yksin making an AIV report for personal attack after final warning; see #Disrupting Wikipedia reporting processes (WP:VANDAL) above for results of this.

Further requests for civility

Murderbike: 00:57, 30 June 2007 - suggestion to read WP:CIVIL
Yksin: 23:11, 22 July 2007 - ":I would want to publicly register my disappointment with the continuous and seemingly endless carping by HanzoHattori about Custerwest, and Custerwest about HanzoHattori, and to ask both of you to please stop it. Even now, even under this header [Offer for Mediation], you both are engaging in personal attacks on each other."
Murderbike: 19:19, 29 July 2007 - "CW, I would like to take this moment to point you to WP:CIVIL, and request that you read it, understand it, and agree with it before you come back and start throwing insults around again. For your own sake, it could get you banned. I would personally rather you contribute productively than slinging insults, making false claims, and generally being UNCIVIL."
Yksin: 21:09, 29 July 2007 - "First to note that User:Felix c is a different individual than User:HanzoHattori. Second to ask, yet again, for users -- notably HanzoHattori, Felix c, and Custerwest -- to please stop using this user page to make personal attacks on one another."

Custerwest responses:

12:35, 20 July 2007 - aforementioned personal attack on HanzoHattori particularly and other editors generally in response to Phaedriel's offer for informal mediation.
18:21, 29 July 2007 - another personal attack on HanzoHattori, in this case in response to a comment not even written by HanzoHattori, but by User:Felix c. (Note that HanzoHattori has also continued to use the article talk page to engage in personal attacks on Custerwest.)
08:38, 1 August 2007 - "Murderbike, I appreciate your vigilant control (sarcasm) - HanzoHattori seems to have receive no such warning, altough he created topics only to attack me, and never to talk about the Washita..."

It's become fairly obvious that neither Custerwest nor HanzoHattori are willing to make any effort at treating each other with civility. Custerwest additionally continues to treat anyone who hasn't read all the same sources he's read about the Battle of Washita River with incivility and even contempt, though we continue to ask for civility:

Yksin: 18:05, 1 August 2007 - "HanzoHattori has received numerous such warnings from me, if not from Murderbike. He continues to ignore them, just as you have tended to ignore such warnings. In fact, your most recent personal attack on HanzoHattori, the one that Murderbike was cautioning you about, attacked HanzoHattori for comments that weren't even made by him, but rather by Felix c. Regardless, I told you awhile ago on your talk page that even when someone else makes personal attacks on you, that is no excuse for you yourself making personal attacks or being uncivil. I wish both you & HanzoHattori (& Felix c besides) would read WP:CIVIL -- even better, that any of you would make the slightest attempt to abide by it. But miracles seem to be in scarce supply at the moment."
Yksin: Most recently, Yksin wrote warnings on both HanzoHattori's and Custerwest's talk pages stating that the next personal attack either made on anyone would result in her reporting them at WP:AIV. Custerwest's warning is here.

Neither has responded to the warning; it's as yet unknown if it will have any beneficial effect.

Neutrality & consensus

Murderbike: 19:57, 29 June 2007 - request on User talk:83.78.46.254 not to remove neutrality tags without consensus. (Anonymous IP; see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) above).
Murderbike: 17:55, 1 July 2007 - request on User talk:83.78.61.58 not to "revert article to previous contentious versions without discussing it on the article's talk page." (Anonymous IP; see #Anonymous IP socks (WP:SOCK) above).
Murderbike: 18:07, 1 July 2007 - "You reverted the article to a previous version that HAS NOT BEEN CONSENSED UPON."

NPOV and NOR

"killed" vs. "murdered" or "executed". Both Murderbike and Yksin attempted to explain why "murdered" and "executed" were unnacceptably POV words for a Wikipedia article as descriptors for how Clara Blinn and her son Willie were killed by their captors; see Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#"murdered" vs. "killed". Custerwest, however, continued to revert to "murdered" or "executed" to the point of violating 3RR; see User talk:Custerwest#Killed vs. Murdered. Murderbike's 3RR report was one of the two reports (the other being an AIV report) that Custerwest delete from the appropriate noticeboards; see #Disrupting Wikipedia reporting processes (WP:VANDAL) above. At 00:55, 30 June 2007, Custerwest wrote to Murderbike: "you put the word "killed" because you didn't know how these captives had been killed. Your decision was based on ignorance and your attacks don't impress me much" -- note also Custerwest's implied claim of article ownership. Custerwest was ultimately given a 24-hour block for 3RR violation; blocking admin Akradecki in his explanation from the blocking admin specifically stated "You changed 'killed' to 'murdered' and/or 'executed' four times. This is the difference between a neutral term and a POV term. We prefer a neutral term. It was explained to you clearly above that you should not do that, and you did it anyway."
Wikipedia policies about NPOV and NOR. Continual efforts have been made to explain Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and how they can be applied to this article. See, for example, Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing (Yksin); Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#POV-pushing based on selective use of sources (Yksin); at least two comments by Murderbike on the article talk page under the topic "Outstanding arrogance, but weak sources"[154][155]; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#More on WP:NOR with regard to authority of sources (Yksin); Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#What Greene's book really says (Yksin); in Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Reply to Custerwest; and mostly recently, by both Murderbike and Yksin at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Clara Blinn. Custerwest is unresponsive to any suggestions regarding NPOV or NOR, generally does not respond at all to any of these efforts to discuss how to make the article NPOV in line with Wikipedia policy, and appears to continue to advocate an article which presents only his own views of Custer, the Battle of the Washita, Black Kettle, or anything else having to do with this article.

Attempts to seek consensus through talk page discussion

Murderbike began on 16 July 2007 to go through the article section by section, making comments on what he felt needed to be addressed in each section. See Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The Infobox; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The intro; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#"Solomon massacre"; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Little Rock's interview; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#October to November, 1868; Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#The battle; Talk:Battle of Washita River#The accounts of the battle. In most cases, Yksin responded with further discussion; HanzoHattori occasionally did; but in not even one of these cases did Custerwest respond. To our best estimation, Custerwest appears to be stonewalling any attempts at seeking consensus, depending rather upon the article's continued full protection to keep the article in the form he prefers.

Informal mediation

In reply to a request from Murderbike for assistance with trying to find consensus, User:Phaedriel made an offer of informal mediation at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Offer for Mediation. Murderbike and Yksin both agreed to participate. Custerwest thanked Phaedriel for offering to help, but fell short of agreeing to participate in informal mediation, instead using his comments to make additional personal attacks on HanzoHattori in particular as well as other editors, stating "Most of the editors here are really tiresome and are not adding anything, especially HanzoHattori" and "Yskin and me could find a consensus, an historical one. The others a really useless, for they haven't read anything on the matter." (HanzoHattori chose to disregard the offer altogether, though did make several personal attacks along the way.) Due to the disinterest in participation by either Custerwest or HanzoHattori, informal mediation could not take place. The failure of the offer for informal mediation is the reason we decided to initiate this RfC and the RfC on HanzoHattori.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Oustide view by Miskwito

This whole fiasco with the Washita article is very disturbing. Yksin and Murderbike should be commended for being as patient as they were, waiting until now to resort to RFCs. My main concern, in reading all of this, is not so much the incivility (though the incivility is of course totally unacceptable), but the utter disregard for consensus and the misuse of footnotes and quotations. Despite having been pointed to Wikipedia's policies many many many times, it's clear that CusterWest either hasn't read them, or has chosen to ignore them entirely, either of which speaks volumes about his lack of respect for the project and for the other editors.

My advice to CusterWest with regard to consensus is (aside from to read and abide by the policies) to understand that just because you think you're correct, and are using sources to back up your claims, doesn't mean you can put whatever you want into an article. The very definition of Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- this means that people who aren't scholars on the Battle of Washita river can still edit and give input on the article. So you can't just dismiss the views of other editors on the grounds that you have more sources than they do, or know more than they do, or are "right". If that's unacceptable to you, then you should stick to using your blog or other forums for broadcasting your beliefs (and this is as good a place as any to remind you that you do not own the article--anyone can edit your writing, and you need to deal with that).

Of course, given the falsification and misuse of sources that Murderbike and Yksin have documented, the fact that CusterWest is using sources to back up his claims ceases to be a mark in his favor. If he is an academic, as he claims to be, then he should damn well know how incredibly serious plagiarism and falsification/misuse of sources is. In academia it is among the worst possible things one can do. One instance of it might be put down to a careless mistake, but with multiple serious instances of plagiarism and misuse/falsification of sources are either the result of a remarkable disregard for careful scholarship, or a deliberate attempt to trick other editors. Either way, it's extremely serious.

I hope CusterWest responds to the RFC, but regardless of his response, I think both he and HanzoHattori have shown such a flagrant disregard and contempt for Wikipedia policy that a ban on editing the Washita River article is probably in order. --Miskwito 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (I've commented in more depth on the article's RfC, so I'll just endorse the above, as it says it as well or better than I could.)[reply]
Yksin 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Murderbike 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bhist 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Verklempt

There are clear examples of incivility and violation of policy. However, I object to this section: "Other incivility (by no means comprehensive)." The examples in this section strike me as no more than vigorous advocacy for a preferred version. I am well aware of the frustration that can arise when editing an article on which you have some expertise, and being reverted by people who have little knowledge of the topic. I do not think Custerwest's comments in this section were worthy of censure, although they could have been phrased with more sensitivity. That may be difficult for someone who speaks English as a second language, which makes subtlety of expression a greater challenge than it would be for a native speaker. It is clear to me that Custerwest needs to work on interpersonal skills and adhere closer to a number of Wikipedia policies. Thus I think the RFC is justified. That said, I also think this RFC has overreached to some extent in making the case against Custerwest.Verklempt 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.