Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) & Kostas20142 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Alex Shih (Talk) & Doug Weller (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 22:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Case closed on 00:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.


Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by K.e.coffman[edit]

My op-ed in the Bugle, WP:MILHIST's newsletter, summarises my findings on the subject of Wikipedia's mythmaking when it comes to the German war effort of 1939-45:

I believe there is evidence to suggest that contributions by LargelyRecyclable's (LR for short) are promoting the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Quoting from the essay:

An apologist worldview akin to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, it posits that if it weren’t for Hitler’s inept leadership, difficult terrain and weather conditions on the Eastern front, and Allied material superiority, the German army would have emerged victorious. This outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war.

For example, in the Erich Hoepner article, LR consistently removed information on the crimes committed by units under Hoepner's command:

  • 11:09, 13 March 2018, with edit summary "Lead is a mess". Removed the mention of the Commissar Order that directed Wehrmacht troops to murder Red Army political officers immediately upon capture, contravening the accepted laws of war. The cooperation with the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile SS death squads that operated in the areas of Wehrmacht command, was also removed.
  • An edit targeting related content for removal: 09:50, 21 February 2018. Also removed the 2 May 1941 order by Hoepner instructing his troops that the war must be "conducted with unprecedented severity".
  • Another attempt to remove the 1941 order: 08:43, 17 February 2018, edit summary: "Totally lacking a reference (...)". ?, because the reference was provided. Etc. etc.

The only explanation offered in the course of these reverts was that "the connection is synthesis" (in edit summary), with these comments on 21 February 2018:

To simply lump in Hoepner with broad brush is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. [1] (...) Both articles fail on the same merits. [2]

This does not pass the smell test. Side note: LR introduced this language into the article: "(...) Hoepner's troops came within sight of the Kremlin during Operation Typhoon" ([3]). 'Within sight of the Kremlin’ is a popular post-war legend. Ironically, the phrase appears verbatim in the 1953 publication The German General Staff: Its History and Structure 1657-1945 by Walter Görlitz: GBooks. Compare with David Stahel's Battle for Moscow (2013): GBooks.

Should the case be accepted, I can present additional examples. I've attempted to discuss on LR's Talk page, where he provided a non-justification for his reverts, while not engaging on the matter of the dispute around the Hoepner & Leeb articles: Talk:LargelyRecyclable#Landwerh, Fedorowicz, etc..

I find such airbrushing and mythologising based on biased or dated sources, and/or misrepresenting reliable sources, to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Reverts without justification and avoiding meaningful discussions are also problematic. I'm not sure what the Committee's actions should be, but a topic ban may be one of the possible remedies. More generally, I'm looking for the implementation of a system of discretionary sanctions for related articles.

I have consulted several historians who specialise in military history and the Holocaust, to validate my perceptions of these disputes. I received three attributed statements that I can email to the Committee to help you evaluate the case. Since some of the evidence is private, I would like to see ArbCom accept this request. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that LR describes my op-ed as incredibly disturbing, given the fact that a leading Holocaust scholar has found historical distortions on Wikipedia and resulting disputes "quite disturbing". The quote is included here, as well as in the original publication from the Society for Military History.[1] The op-ed has already been published in MILHIST's Bugle, at the invitation of one of the editors, Nick-D. Some within MilHist indeed found it objectionable, but not all: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Review essay#Comments.
Separately, I would caution Coffman... [4] comes across as off. I've been a subject of hounding, personal attacks, and minor harassment (i.e. Special:Contributions/HicManebimusOptime, as alluded to by LR), so this immediate pivot does not surprise me. Targeting my contributions is what led, in part, to LR's block last year; the unblock comment included: "other behavior (edit-warring, hounding) was sub-optimal and should stop". In contrast, LR's limited time on Wiki has been largely spent whitewashing / edit-warring on the Hoepner page and reverting my contributions elsewhere: [5]; [6]; [7]; & [8]; including on an article he's not edited before: [9]. This last edit restored fringe / apologist sources, as discussed here. Given the behavioural issues, I would like to encourage ArbCom to take this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Headquarters Gazette, Society for Military History, Winter 2018, p. 10.


@Worm That Turned: The matter is complex and goes beyond content disputes—into how sources are used, and misused, and editor behaviour. Compare with: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. It also involves 3rd-party statements that I'd like to provide to the Committee privately. I thus believe ArbCom to be the best venue to adjudicate the matter.
There's a lot of backstory here, but I would like this case, if accepted, to focus on the disputes with LR, as much of his editing has targeted my contributions specifically. Upon joining, LR expressed concerns about "two or three activist editors working in coordination" [10]. (Indeed, a number of editors have been accused of being my "friends", "sidekicks" and / or beeing part of my "tagteam" over the years). LR continues in the same thread permalink:
It was then that I realized a lot of the "weird" things that had been bugging me about so many of the WII articles were all traced to the same source. The wreckage goes back over the past year and a half. MILHIST worked to push back some but a lot of them seemed to just give up and go home out of fatigue. [11]
It's clear to me that LR has joined the project to counteract the "wreckage", so him calling me a SPA that seeks to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is rather ironic. Apart from mythologising, I have observed LR misrepresenting sources in a number of articles. Sample from a TP discussion:
begin quote
The information that was added by LargelyRecyclable in this edit, ostensibly cited to Zabecki, failed verification: Despite the superior Soviet tanks and numbers Hoepner's 4th Panzer Group destroyed over 700 Soviet tanks, (...). ... led his forces to within 11 kilometers of Leningrad before being halted by Soviet forces.{{snf|Zabecki|2014|p=615}}
Here's Zabecki p. 615: it's a brief entry on Hoepner [12]; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” nor “within 11 km to Leningrad”. That's either OR, with citation appended after the fact, or misrepresentation of the source. [Another example of a source being misused follows.] K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) permalink[reply]
end quote
Despite pings and having edited the article since the exchange, LR chose to ignore this misrepresentation of sources, while still apparently believing that the article "fails" because of what he considers "synthesis", presumably the inclusion of the crimes that the commander committed or condoned. Other articles targeted by LR for similar "rehabilitation" include Arthur Nebe (a GA), where he plans to "Check sources, POV, tone, reassess", and Erich von Manstein (also a GA), where he plans to fix "Everything" and then "rehabilitate" it. This information is available via User:LargelyRecyclable/dashboard which LR links from his user page.
Yes, as others noted, our articles need a lot of work to make sure that Wikipedia is not one of "the worst distributors of pro-Nazi perspectives and the Wehrmacht myth", as the historian Jens Westemeier puts it. To me, LR's editing stood out quite a bit. I found it to be the perfect distillation of how historical distortions can be promoted on Wikipedia—through a combination of bullying, evasion, misuse of sources, and excising of material that disagrees with the preferred interpretation of the subjects. That's why I decided to bring this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Here're several related reports from April 2017; they predate LR opening an account in Sept 2017:
The admin action relevant to the present dispute with LR is covered here:
  • Blocked for violating terms of "clean start". Includes discussion of hounding etc, i.e.: From your first edits - in which you tag-bombed a Good Article, edit-warred to maintain the tags, and criticized another contributor in personal terms - you have done the opposite, and actually sought out controversy and contention to the near-exclusion of all else.
K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Adding a couple more incidents; these are older reports:
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Auntieruth55: re I'm deeply concerned about KEC's post on The Bugle in that it is unverifiable. (...) there are several quotes from prominent historians that may or may not be taken out of context. The historians are being quoted in the context of the Society of Military History (SMH) newsletter. Before submitting my draft to SMH, I approached each for quote approval.

My email was: "I'm following up on the below email. I reached out to the U.S. based Society of Military History http://www.smh-hq.org/, who invited me to submit a short article for their newsletter. I'd like your permission to quote you in the article, which is attached as a Word document." Responses were: "I have no objection to my inclusion as quoted in your piece for the SMH newsletter". And: "You have permission to quote me. In fact, you can say: this is fascinating and quite disturbing". Etc.

As far as what the historians were reacting to, one can have a scan at my user page (i.e. User:K.e.coffman#Humanitarianism Award Showcase) or read the newsletter which includes a few specific examples: SMH Headquarters Gazette, Winter 2018, p. 10. I hope that this addresses the concerns. KrakatoaKatie, @Newyorkbrad: & others: more generally, I am, of course, at liberty to share what I wrote to the historians; I can email it to ArbCom. If ArbCom deems it in scope, I could post to my userspace. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re LR's comment: Coffman has now tacitly endorsed the linking of the K.e.Coffman name to off-wiki activity with his provided publication and essay [13] – I’m a bit surprised by this. For example, I’ve long been open about how I view certain peer-reviewed articles and their sources, as can be seen here: User:K.e.coffman#Special mentions, including FA/GA articles. Calling the attention of a research community to a perceived issue seems entirely normal to me. As mentioned in the Society for Military History newsletter, my “ask” of the its readers was:
I think it would be fascinating to explore this community further from an academic perspective. Wikipedia is fertile ground for further research into the image of the Wehrmacht & the Waffen-SS in English-language popular culture.
Press and researchers write about Wikipedia all the time. As an example, here's an interesting piece in Hatewatch about how fringe theories are propagated on Wikipedia and the challenges that editors in such areas face: Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets. Some of that is applicable to my experiences in the WW2 area. In any case, I would be happy to provide any information that ArbCom may request in the context of the case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LargelyRecyclable[edit]

Well, this is bold.

Coffman and I (and many others) have had expansive content disputes on the proper scope and tone of material across a wide variety of articles, generally revolving around the Second World War. And that's largely, up to this point, the extent. I don't know what "smell tests" are, who his secret experts who apparently have forensically examined my edits for the odor of mythologizing are, or what high crime I've committed that would warrant his recommendation of a topic ban in front of the ArbCom. I've generally found Coffman to be polite, sober, intelligent, and always ready to engage in discussion, even if some exchanges could be described as terse and he's been somewhat overzealous in the correction of systemic biases in German-related WWII articles, both real and imagined. Additionally, we've had success in coming to resolution in content disputes in the past, both between just us and as a larger conversation, in places like Karl Strecker and Panzer ace, respectively. This is why I'm so surprised by this attempt to banish someone who disagrees with much of his approach to the topic with this medium, a medium that far outpaces the usual graduated steps to resolve whatever anguish he seems to be suffering.

This comes at a time in which I'm exceptionally busy in life and am not consistently making many contributions. I'll assume the best intentions on his behalf and just chalk it up to poor timing. My follow through on edits is not always great, as my time here is fit into the small windows of opportunity my life allows. I can grant that this could give the impression of disconnection or disregard to the general cycle of discussion, which could explain at least a small portion of this. I do my best to concede issues raised in such periods of inactivity instead of dragging them out and unreasonably force others to conform to my schedule. Again, see Strecker. I've never been involved in an ArbCom case before and I have zero desire to be involved in one now. This request seems neither necessary or wise, unless some of Coffman's "other examples" teased at in exchange for acceptance of the request will bear more light. Should the case be accepted I'll do what I can to participate to its conclusion and provide the most complete picture of the circumstances I can. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to amend the above. I've reviewed Coffman's Signpost draft and it's incredibly disturbing. The framework he's using to push his paradigm has potentially significant consequence for Wikipedia as a whole. This may, in fact, be something that the ArbCom wants to accept, although the context should likely be much broader than just his displeasure with my disagreeing with him at times. I would caution Coffman that this particular route has substantial implications for WP:OUT and the possible reexamination of off-Wiki material concerning the coordination of editing and other activist activities previously removed by DGG at Coffman's request. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that DGG review a previously redacted incident involving Coffman that was categorized as an issue of WP:OUT. The incident in question does not, in my opinion, meet OUT and pertains to a pattern of disruptive behavior, canvassing, gaming, and a general lack of good faith in the furthering of an SPA that seeks to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be necessary to have disclosure done privately within the ArbCom, although it's my hope for full public disclosure on behalf of the community. I'll further establish context should the ArbCom so desire. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[14] I'll address this, since other forms of this comment veer much closer to unsupported personal attacks against me. The "myth of the Clean Wehrmacht" is a real phenomenon, and well established. Its roots are both outright apologism and a non-apologist component of post-war European Cold War politicking in the West. I have never, in any shape, anywhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere, prescribed to the idea or advocated on behalf of the idea, that the German military was devoid of blame or a non-participant to either war crimes or the Nazi regime's mass murder of perceived racial and political enemies. In fact, the first biography I wrote after coming back extensively covers the murder of almost a hundred Jewish children by the SS and the Ukrainian auxiliary on the Eastern Front, with the immediate support and encouragement of senior Army officers. I've largely left additional commentary unsaid, to avoid a back-and-forth and to wait on a decision on the review of prior activities by Coffman, but I comment now because baseless accusations of Nazi sympathies or the intentional obscuring of the crimes committed in the war on my part is offensive and unreasonable. Discussion can be had about the proper scope and presentation of historical fact without resorting to such behavior and I'd ask that it stop. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the ArbCom takes this up I'd request that a review, clarification, or perhaps amendment, of the fresh start policy be incorporated into the case. Despite having disclosed my complete editing history to the ArbCom on a prior occasion and having my account deemed legitimate, I've been both superfluously blocked and accused of being a sock puppet, CU case and all. The issue is now coming up again in a negative context, here. Frankly I'm wondering if it hasn't been more trouble than it's worth, which makes me question the utility of the policy altogether. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that an acceptance of the Request for Arbitration seems to be a forgone conclusion, I'd request that the previously raised issue of the case of OUTING, the entirety of the filer's off-wiki exchanges with several current and former academics, and the circumstances of MastCell's block of my account be addressed in preparation for the evidentiary phase. I'd ask that a decision on the redaction of the OUTING material being rescinded, or at least that the restrictions on re-introducing it being lifted, be made prior to that phase. Without going into potentially privileged detail, the material in question does not include personally identifiable information on Coffman, it includes the acknowledgement by Coffman that it is in fact him, and it immediately pertains to coordinating on-wiki editing in an outside but still public forum. Additionally, Coffman has now tacitly endorsed the linking of the K.e.Coffman name to off-wiki activity with his provided publication and essay. To protect that pseudonym's wiki-related activities when done in a public environment and when it does not include any PII does not make any sense, especially as it demonstrates, beyond a doubt, prohibited behavior and conduct long recognized by the community as unacceptable. Secondly, I'd ask that Coffman be compelled to submit the entirety of any and all off-wiki email chains with his cited academics should he wish to use them as a facet of evidence in this Request. Without this, such evidence is inherently contaminated, as he seeks to lean on the credibility of these people. At such time the voracity of the provided exchanges could be independently confirmed by the ArbCom with the named academics when possible. I suspect that this is not a big ask, as Coffman has already indicated he is willing to do this. Lastly, as seen in my Talk page archive, the chronology of my block by MastCell, almost immediately after a dispute with Bishonen and Doug Weller on the appropriateness of removing talk page comments on the topic of Coffman's behaivior, makes very little sense as explained there. Should MastCell wish to participate in this Case I ask that a clear and believable explanation on the circumstances of my block be provided, as that situation has already been cited here MastCell and others. I hope these are all reasonable requests to make of the ArbCom, I've never done this before. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[15] @Nick-D: I don't want to misrepresent you going forward. Do you disagree with the assertion that there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia's coverage of World War Two? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a pause[edit]

Several attempts have been made to breach the accounts of editors involved in the area of World War Two. I suspect at least one attempt was successful. I'll ask that we give a pause before moving on with this to take stock of who else may have been compromised. I'd also ask that if the ArbCom has decided to make pubic previous off-wiki material relating to Coffman that they hold off on doing so. My opinion on the material hasn't changed but I'd say better safe than sorry for now. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[16] @Euryalus: Thanks. I'd like to add that at least one editor has reported that, in addition to an attempted breach of his account, two weeks ago someone called his employer and demanded that his editing in WWII be "investigated". Whether or not it's related I don't know. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

  • Added to template. Note we currently only have 9 active arbs, so 5 is a majority for this case at present. Sorry for a delay, we seem to be a tad short-staffed as clerks as well! Mdann52 (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: Your request for an extension is granted, and your word limit is extended by the length of your replies to other users. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardised section headings. Amortias (T)(C) 11:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/1/0)[edit]

  • Awaiting additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could use more input on this request and the underlying situation from subject-knowledgeable editors, who may not necessarily watchlist the arbitration pages. I would welcome suggestions on how we might best seek such input in an appropriate and neutral fashion. Statements could helpfully address whether we should accept this case, what its scope should be if accepted, and what resources or methods might be available to help us decide it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request presages an exceptionally complex, sensitive, and difficult case. (For this reason, I would grant all reasonable requests for extensions of word limits.) Not for the first time I am concerned that different arbitrators voting to accept a case are not really voting to accept the same case. But defining the scope of any case at this stage is difficult because it is not yet clear where the line will fall between content disputes, which the ArbCom does not resolve, and conduct such as misuse of sources, which at some point becomes misconduct that we can address (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance). K.e.coffman's concerns about the articles we are discussing are set forth more clearly in his "Bugle" essay and on his userpage than they are in the request for arbitration, which seems artificially, if understandably, focused on one particular editor. I'm still considering my vote on accepting the case: Our articles in this topic-area could benefit from some form of review, I'm not convinced that ArbCom is the right forum for such a review, but Wikipedia has no editorial board. Finally, the links at the end of Cinderella157's opening statement are outrageous. Analogizing an on-wiki dispute to mass-murders by tyrannies would be inappropriate in any setting, and invoking a Nazi atrocity in the context of this specific case is particularly provocative and offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shades of this somewhat unsatisfactory case re allegations of user conduct issues arising from historical source interpretation. Also awaiting more statements: without prejudging validity I'd be interested in how to define a case scope that didn't cross over into content disputes. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to examine the editor conduct of k.e.coffman and LargelyRecyclable, and related editors. Disclaimer that this doesn't presuppose misconduct - merely that there are enough allegations in this thread to justify a review. Decline a wider case as something the Committee is not well placed to resolve. There's clearly a very substantial question to be answered on bias or otherwise in WWII articles - but it will need detailed source analysis, some extended back and forth between editors and considerable time for semi-expert discussion, and I don't see Arbcom's cumbersome structures as best placed to do this justice. For what it's worth I like the idea of one or more arbitrators/administrators/experienced editors being formally assigned to carry out this analysis over the medium term and then report back; that way we'd be presented with neutral recommendations on the topic and could decide if we wanted to give them some teeth. But a meaningful review of subtle content bias across a large subset of WWII articles is not something we're likely to do well in the confines of a six-week Arbcom case, and not something simply resolved with yet another discretionary sanctions regime. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LargelyRecyclable: See this thread re attempted hacking. I don't think it's related to this case request, or World War II editors. But we seem to be having a pause anyway, while we glacially discuss case scope. -- Euryalus (talk)
  • @LargelyRecyclable: From what we know of the password-hacking attempts, they would be unrelated to anyone contacting OberRank's employer. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I haven't seen in the statements so far is a satisfactory explanation of why ArbCom needs to be the one to handle this. Obviously we are unable to decide on content disputes, and that definitely seems to be the basis for this case. Of course, I'm willing to be corrected. WormTT(talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied that there are longstanding problems, I'm not certain that Arbcom will necessarily be able to find solutions, but perhaps with some rigorous community input at the workshop, we stand a chance. Care must be taken to ensure that our decision doesn't breach in to content handling though. Accept WormTT(talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with WTT. Where is he attempt to handle this at ANI or another community venue for handling behavioral issues? ~ Rob13Talk 13:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. No dispute resolution attempts have targeted the overall topic area, yet we're considering taking on the entire topic area as a case. I'm aware of very little precedent for taking a case without prior dispute resolution attempts. Without past community discussion on the topic area, we're flying blind. We don't know what does and doesn't work in this topic area, because nothing's been tried. We don't know why (or even if) typical dispute resolution fails here, because there is no such attempted dispute resolution. We form good sanctions by looking at past attempts by the community, growing upon what's worked, and discarding what's failed. I don't see how arbitration can have a successful outcome with so little information. Additionally, I'm gravely concerned about the precedent we're setting by stepping in before the community has had a chance to try to resolve the issues in this topic area. Other arbitrators have privately voiced that they do not feel the community is likely to succeed at addressing these issues. I don't see that as a reason not to let them try, because even failed dispute resolution attempts increase the chance of success at arbitration. I've also seen at least one arbitrator state that they feel we would "lose control" if we allowed a community attempt at resolution. I wholly reject that line of thinking; we are not here to "control", and we should encourage the community to handle disputes wherever possible. ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there are ANI threads somewhere that have either been brought by KEC or are about him (or both). I’d like to see links to some of those so I can read further. Katietalk 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept to examine sourcing issues surrounding biographies of Nazis and the behavior of editors in this area. There is likely to be private evidence here, including the letters written to historians by K.e. coffman and the acceptance of a clean start account that was apparently done during the last Arbcom election. I don’t see how further ANI sections will help; I think the community is unable to solve this problem and it’s time for us to step in. I’m open to further refinement of the case scope. Katietalk 02:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept but with a wider case scope to include at least all WWII related military history as the problem is wider than simply biographies. auntieruth you mention long-standing problems, will this be wide enough? I'm afraid we'll have to disappoint you since we can't assign someone to work with the project as an Arbitrator, that's not within our remit. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acccept I agree with Doug about the scope. Some persistent problems at WP can be very closely related to content disputes. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history. I don't know that we have the mandate or the expertise to determine reliability of sources on a broad scale, however; it seems a little too close to a content issue for me. Like Katie, I'm also open to further tweaking of the scope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, belatedly. I see the point above about a relative lack of prior dispute resolution, but I nevertheless think we should investigate this. Of all the types of disputes that arbcom handles, allegations of subtle POV-pushing in hot-button topic areas is one of those that benefits most from a careful inquiry taking place at a measured pace in a structured environment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I apologise for the late participation. I will be expanding my comment shortly. Alex Shih (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

4) Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions[edit]

5) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User contributions and harassment[edit]

6) While it is acceptable and sometimes necessary for an editor to review, comment and correct appropriately on the contributions of another editor that are problematic, the practice known as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking" is considered as a form of harassment and is prohibited by policy. The line between legitimate and improper behavior in this area is not always clearly defined. Relevant factors include whether or not there was consensus from multiple editors on the concerns raised, and whether or not the editor have raised these concerns on talk pages, noticeboards or other appropriate venues. Most importantly, whether or not the editor was motivated by good faith concerns about the quality of the topic area, instead of being motivated by personal hostility toward one editor.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Function of WikiProjects[edit]

7) The function of WikiProjects is to facilitate and improve editing in a topic area. Popular WikiProjects like the military history WikiProject may have a group of coordinators that have been selected by approval vote of the project community. Their role is to maintain the internal structure and process of the project, and do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.

Passed 8 to 1 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Featured Articles[edit]

8) Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles, although this should be done with care. Featured articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be appropriately edited to maintain their quality, or may be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is a longterm disagreement over due and undue weight, identifying reliable sources, in addition to what constitutes of "intricate details" in biographies relating to the Wehrmacht, and to a larger extent, German participation in the Second World War.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors in the topic area[edit]

2) Editors involved in the topic area of German participation in the Second World War have been mostly editing in good faith. Some of the editing however has been less than optimal, which resulted in ongoing content disputes and disputes over the principles of neutral point of view and the interpretation of reliable sources. This has involved some suboptimal user conduct.

Passed 9 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable began harassing K.e.coffman immediately after registering[edit]

3) The account of LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassed K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) virtually from its creation. Within the first 48 hours of account creation, they have targeted Rommel myth and other articles where K.e.coffman is the main contributor in terms of edits. ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) See also TonyBallioni's and Bishonen's evidence.

Passed 11 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable has harassed K.e.coffman & Bishonen[edit]

4) LargelyRecyclable has harassed K.e.coffman and Bishonen, and continued to engage in further personal attacks and harassment during the course of this arbitration case. (16% of edits to Talk: namespace included the string 'Coffman' [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) See TonyBallioni's and Bishonen's evidence.

Passed 8 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki posts by K.e.coffman[edit]

5A) Over a year ago, K.e.coffman made off-wiki posts discussing their concerns about the German War Effort subject area on Wikipedia. When people responded to their post and asked what should be done, K.e.coffman's response was that people interested in the area should register accounts and edit in any areas that interested them, recommending copyediting, adding reliable sources or placing maintenance tags as good places to start. At no point in any of the threads or posts which were submitted to the Arbitration Committee for review did K.e.coffman suggest any particular articles or talk pages as a focus, nor did they recommend any specific sources to use. The Arbitration Committee has found no evidence that their posts had any effect on Wikipedia. Telling people they can create accounts and do normal editing does not constitute canvassing or meatpuppetry.

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Conduct of Cinderella157[edit]

6) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in personal attacks against K.e.coffman and cast aspersions on their editing without providing sufficient evidence. ([31] [32])

Passed 8 to 3 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

General finding[edit]

8) K.e.coffman raised a series of good-faith concerns that articles about the German military and military leadership during World War II placed too much emphasis on the strictly military and technical aspects, such as the individuals' military records, without placing the individuals' roles into their duly weighted historical contexts. Other editors on these articles opined that K.e.coffman's response to this concern, including removals of certain information, was in their view excessive. While those responding (other than LargelyRecyclable) also generally did so in good faith, the tone of some of the resulting discussions was unnecessarily aggressive and was not calculated to assist in resolving what had become a significant series of content disputes involving a complex and deeply sensitive subject.

Passed 9 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157's and Auntieruth55's conduct as Military History WikiProject coordinators[edit]

9) Cinderella157 and Auntieruth55 were coordinators of the Military History WikiProject. Though WikiProject coordinators lack formal authority over content matters, their behavior was influential due to their position. The behavior of both these coordinators was dismissive and obstructionist in response to serious, good faith concerns about a problem. ([33], [34], [35], [36], Bishonen's evidence)

Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstention at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

LargelyRecyclable banned[edit]

2) For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.

Passed 11 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157 German history topic ban[edit]

3C) Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 2 with 3 abstentions at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 reminded[edit]

5) Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.

Passed 6 to 3 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors reminded[edit]

6) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

General conclusion and remedy[edit]

7) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort&oldid=1212164347"