Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop

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)

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:TonyBallioni

Proposed principles

User contributions and harassment

1) While following user contributions may be used for legitimate purposes if following another user's contributions is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is generally correct, although there's a slightly different wording we've used before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Everything "is accompanied by..." on comes from WP:HOUNDING. This basically just summarizes the principles in that section of policy and restates it. I think it is important for the committee to reaffirm. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I just copied WP:HOUNDING verbatim for most of it so the committee would be reaffirming policy. If there's a better phrasing that gets the same point across, I have no problem with using it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages

2) Users are exepcted to conduct themselves with civility, avoid personal attacks and harassment, and behave in a manner consistent with the principles of Wikipedia on arbitration pages. The Arbitration Committee may take into account conduct by users at any stage of a case when making its final decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I noted in general discussion (below) that the conduct of LR being referred to followed and is directly related to the conduct of another contributor. LR has not excused their conduct but the fuller context should not be ignored. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since some of the conduct here has been less than desirable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and historiography

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant historiographies. Significant historiographies, in this case, 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps "a good-faith attempt at fair representation" as no one editor can be expected to be across all possible sources and viewpoints. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a good start, but doesn't address the conduct issues that are undermining NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on the pseudoscience NPOV principle and adapted for this case. I’ve stayed out of the content issues for the most part, and have no intent of proposing any FOF in that regard because it is not my area. At the same time NPOV as it relates to historiography appears to be at the heart of this case and from what I can see none of the proposals thus far that comment on it are within the remit of ArbCom. Feel free to tear it apart, tweak, ignore, etc. but I knoe I always work best with something to draft off of, so I thought I’d put this forth. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, that would be something dealt with in the FOF’s and remedies. I just tried to summarize what I think there is general consensus for in principle into ArbComese. I won’t be proposing any FOFs or remedies beyond the ones I already have as I’m not familiar enough with the topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

LargelyRecyclable has harassed other users

1) LargelyRecyclable has harassed K.e.coffman and other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have indicated in general discussion (below) some concerns. TonyBallioni has presented their evidence objectively; however, it is built upon an initial presumption of "bad faith". I observe that much of the behaviour attributed to LR could also be seen in KEC and their early conduct particularly. KEC had the appearance of following around two editors that contributed heavily to GWE articles. The fact is that there were few articles where they had not edited. I think, if I looked, I might even find KEC turning up to revert in articles where they had never edited before. KEC has applied multiple tags to multiple articles. KEC's discussions on talk pages might be described as argumentative. I might even see a high percentage of edits interacting with these other editors. In respect that KEC is essentially making these same allegations, it has the appearance of WP:POT. I also note that the initial presumption can be self fulfilling. WP implores us to AGF. What cannot be reasonably attributed to GF is then bad faith. The case studies I have submitted have led me to a conclusion of bad faith in the case of KEC, not because I have started from a premise of assuming bad faith but because I have found multiple instances which I believe cannot be attributed to good faith. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, I am pointing out that one can investigate LR's conduct from an initial premise of GF or an initial premise of BF. Assuming BF becomes self fulfilling. I have seen it too often in the RW. WP says we should start from a premise of GF. My point is, that starting from premise of GF may lead to a conclusion of BF or it may lead to a conclusion of "not BF". A BF spin is to assume that LR has returned to WP to harass one particular editor. This ascribes their actions to personalities and is wrong if true. A GF spin is that they have returned to WP to improve particular articles that happen to have been edited by one particular editor. This would be perfectly legitimate an focuses on articles and not personalities. BF spin: they go to articles they have never before edited because they have been edited by KEC. GF spin: a new editor has to go somewhere. You can hardly go anywhere in GWE without bumping into KEC. There are links between articles that may or may not establish a reasonable progression. BF spin: they have no reason to go to BLPN except to stalk KEC. GF spin: they just happened to notice this particular discussion because of some RW interaction with the subject. I'm not saying that your ultimate conclusion is inherently wrong. I am saying that there is a flaw in the logical process. Starting with a negative proposition will almost invariably lead to a conclusion that supports the proposition. However, starting with a positive proposition may tend to a positive conclusion but does not preclude a negative conclusion.

As to Nick-D's statement (if I am following you right) is that LR escalated another editor's harassment? I may have missed something but I'm not seeing a good evidentiary basis for this. You have to go to the SPI and the links are not well annotated. Further, you need to start from a premise that KEC is right and LR is wrong (which may or may not be the case). You have to dig deeper for confirmation. What I am seeing though, is the first interaction(?) was for Nick to revert LR with a categorical assessment that they were a troll. Then I am seeing an allegation of sock puppetry and of violating clean start, both of which were not substantiated. I then see these allegations being made again, here. This has the appearance of "sour grapes".

I am not saying you are wrong Tony but there are issues with how you have reached that conclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think my evidence shows this, as does the block by GoldenRing for harassment of Bish. The focus is K.e.coffman, which is where it was the worst, but their conduct is not confined to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest strengthening this to note that LR was created for the purpose of harassing K.e.coffman, and did so by escalating another editor's harassment. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would note that there were legitimate reasons to "follow" K.e.coffman's edits because he was doing such an impact on the whole topic area with the redirects and removals of intricate details. But it does seem LargelyRecyclable clearly didn't really care about behaving well in some instances. --Pudeo (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

LR's very first edits were to harass K.e.coffman. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: in addition to Nick-D’s point (which I agree with), my evidence also shows an example of LE following K.e.coffman to BLPN, and responding to questions asked by K.e.coffman on talk pages LR had never been to before. This isn’t legitimate following to check on edits, this is following to let someone know they are being watched, which is harassment. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Cinderella157: if joining a project to harass one specific editor because of their contributions isn’t the definition of bad faith editing I don’t know what is. Going to articles one has never edited before is normal. Following one person and only one person isn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable's conduct during this arbitration case

2) LargelyRecyclable engaged in personal attacks and harassment during the course of this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, their interactions with Bish were because of this case and on these case pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

1)For engaging in harassment of other users LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because this would have resulted in an indef if it went to ANI. That it also merited an arb case shouldn't change that fact that they joined with this account for the purposes of harassing another human being. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing this to an indef duration block (which can be lifted via community consensus at WP:AN if the editor provides convincing assurances). An ArbCom ban is a big deal, which few editors are willing to ever consider lifting. As such, they should be reserved only for the most problematic editors. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom typically only bans. Sanctions placed by the committee are also traditionally only able to be appealed to the committee. I also think it fair to consider LargelyRecyclable the worst of the worst: they joined this website with the intention of harassing one specific human being, and knowing that part of this case was based on their harassment, decided to harass Bishonen during this case anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable: interaction ban

2) LargelyRecyclable is placed under an indefinite one-way interaction ban with K.e.coffman

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Either as an alternative to the above or in addition to it (so it is in effect should the above pass and then they successfully appeal). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by Pudeo

Proposed findings of fact

K.e.coffman's large-scale removals

1) K.e.coffman performed large-scale redirects of German military biography articles and removals of "intricate detail" without always obtaining community consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with this, but it's not just about the lack of community consensus for removal of "intricate detail", it is also about being contrary to other policies and undermining NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on my and Peacemaker67's evidence. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: c. 2000 articles were redirected and a lot of information was also removed from articles as "intricate detail" without proper procedures and consensus. --Pudeo (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We also have WP:BOLD as a very longstanding guideline, with the community generally disliking process wonkery. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

BOLD isn't really what is going on here, this is mass deletion on an industrial scale contrary to WP:NOCITE and WP:PRESERVE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman's advocative mentality / meatpuppetry

1) K.e.coffman displayed battleground advocative mentality due to his polemical collations of criticisms related disputes on his user page, his attempts at meatpuppetry and reporting on Wikipedia disputes off-site

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The material I have seen actively sought to recruit others to WP based on a particular POV and engage in drive-by tagging and a very stong implication that this is intended to be disruptive. I note the early actions of LR and how these have been construed without the additional element of recruitment. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I feel that on the other hand this is harsh because I commend K.e.coffman for documenting plenty of things on talk pages and being civil, but I think his userpage is fairly clearly within WP:POLEMIC, and this also depends on how seriously one sees the off-site evidence emailed to the ArbCom. --Pudeo (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-site discussions/bitching aren’t meatpuppetry (and I’ve seen the website in question as I sent it in to the oversight list once.) If they were, any post on Wikipediaocracy about something ongoing on-wiki would violate that. Mestpuppetry typically requires evidence of active collusion or an active intent to affect specific discussions. There’s none of that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely not accurate. The diffs I provided as evidence demonstrate that K.e.coffman has been civil in discussions. The implication that Wikipedia editors are meant to observe some kind of code of silence and not comment on Wikipedia elsewhere is ridiculous (and, quite sensibly, against community norms: I've seen arbitrators and admins discuss Wikipedia's shortcomings in the media). Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording from battleground mentality to advocative mentality because on a second thought, WP:ADVOCACY is more accurate. --Pudeo (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

K.e.coffman prohibited

1) K.e.coffman is prohibited from (I) redirecting articles without using the proposed merge or articles for deletion procedures and (II) systematically removing details from articles en masse without obtaining a consensus through the RfC process

Comment by Arbitrators:

What details are meant specifically by "certain details"? As written, this is not clear enough to be an enforceable sanction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also seeking clarification on "Systematically". Whats the unsystematic way of doing it? Also removing details? So he can't remove content out of articles? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Responding to TonyBallioni's ping. Re: I) KEC got a weak consensus for the ~1,700 redirects of Knight's Cross recipient articles, which is what I believe this is meant to address. It wasn't a well-informed consensus and the discussion involved a lot of ambit claims and obfuscation, but KEC got one before doing the mass redirecting. The deletion of reliable sources and military and other biographical information such as dates and places of birth and death, details of early life, awards and promotions from what must be thousands of articles is what II) is about. KEC has provided absolutely no rationale for this behaviour, and I have commented on that in detail in my evidence and in my section here, but I believe it demonstrates KECs anti-military POV and undermines building the encyclopaedia. KEC should have started a RfC (probably at WT:BIO) in relation to his mass removal of dates and places of birth and death and similar standard biographical material from articles. So I don't support I) but I do support II). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've discussed this here "KEC undermined" and "KEC removed". In summary, the talk about reliable military sources, military aspects etc strikes me as special pleadings. Also, what are "military sources"? Sources are either reliable or not; there's no special dispensation for "military material". All content is subject to NPOV, V, NOR, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly have I claimed some special dispensation for "military sources"? More misrepresentation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've not claimed that; this was my conclusion about the language of reliable military sources that was introduced here [1]; also "military" sources here: [2]. What are these "reliable military sources" and how are they different from reliable sources? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe this is necessary because the number of redirects is so high, and who even knows from how many articles "intricate detail" (like early life, WW1 service) was removed. It is almost impossible to review, let alone revert, those changes without a bot. The massive scale of the actions was damaging. In many of the biographies a chance to discuss the individual notability would have been important or atleast somehow limit the scope of the redirects. That's a lot of work, but a lot of work also went into building those articles. --Pudeo (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: What I tried to convey was systematically removing "certain details" such as early life or the list of awards from biographies. That is, the removal of information isn't based on assessing individual articles, but rather removing the same information from all German biographies en masse. See Peacemaker67's evidence section ”Intricate detail”. I tried to improve the wording a bit. --Pudeo (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

With "systematically" I mean (almost bot-scale) mass removals of similar information from articles. That's all there is to it. I mean it's pretty obvious why going bold on that kind of scale is harmful. FYI: K.e.coffman has an average of 58.4 edits per day spanning 1360 days.[3] And now K.e.coffman is doing that in gun articles as well, commenting out details[4] like the weight of the weapon from the infobox despite the information fields being standard in template:infobox weapon. That's outside of this case's scope, but that's the exact same issue. --Pudeo (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly redirecting an article consumes much less community time and is very easy to undo (as I've done myself - I've undone perhaps over a 100 of such redirects by KEC - and then "lost" the argument (one some of them) in an AfD on one of them). And no content is lost - it really a single undo click. An AfD, on the other hand, is a process that will typically take say at least 5-10 minutes of editor timer per !voter per article - and particularly on borderline cases takes longer - a typical AfD is probably minimum 30 minutes of aggregate editor time - and if the AfD passes delete (and not all such decisions are correct - sometimes participants fail to spot sources establishing notability) - the content is gone. A large proportion of KEC's redirects were inline with previous AfD results. When challenged - he's taken them to AfD. KEC leans deletionist, but his AfD stats are fairly spot on - both for his nominations and for voting - his assessment of the outcome of AfDs is well established.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, a lot of them could have been easily contested. Maybe after this ArbCom case editors might review some of the redirects. But for a single editor it would have been impossible, or atleast rather disheartening to try to review 2000 redirects and go against a "machine" of 58 edits per day. Atleast I gave up when I saw the scale, thought it had been damaging and just hoped someone will bring the issue up for review somewhere. Echoing Peacemaker67's comments, apparently others had a similar view and this issue just brewed in the background until finally in this case the conduct has been scrutinized. Plus there's the issue of removing "intricate detail" besides the redirects too. --Pudeo (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 agreed below that K.e.coffman achieved consensus and acted upon it, even if Peacemaker disagreed with it (pinging so he can speak for himself). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman admonished

1) K.e.coffman is admonished for his attempted meatpuppetry, battleground advocative mentality and large-scale removals without using the appropriate procedures

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Refer to both findings of fact. Again, "battleground mentality" might be too harsh, but combining the userpage soapboxing, offsite behauvior and damage done with the removals, I'm putting this remedy on the table. --Pudeo (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not accurate. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Pldx1

Not suitable for workshop. Advice given on talk page - feel free to rewrite as appropriate Mdann52 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed principles Experts are experts of a domain 1) Statements not made inside of a RS by the author of a recognized Reliable Source are not reliable by themselves. Reliable statements must belong to the field of expertise of the expert, and they must have been released in a peer reviewed context. Hilbert's opinion (if any) on how to cook Marillenknödeln is not authoritative. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: What is the relevance of this? Did someone ask a carpenter for their opinion on the Wehrmacht? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC) What is discussed are not the facts of 70 years ago, but the alleged influence of such and such en:wp articles upon how the English speaking people perceive these facts, 70 years later. Pldx1 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Writing about "die Träger" as if it was another kind of Pokemon is infuriating 2) People writing about the events of WW2 are supposed to know that the events were real life events that impacted the life of all of the living people of this period and caused the death of so many. In this context, writing the articles about "die Träger" as if it was only another kind of a TV series is infuriating (example, praising a quidam for "successfully conducting a car over the distance from Los Angeles to El Paso" ). References Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Once again, this is not appropriate for a "Finding of Fact". All of these are opinions, unsupported by evidence, and should have been added to the evidence page, if anywhere. I suggest that this entire section be archived and ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Following the advice of User:Beyond My Ken, I have moved this one from the 'fact' section. I apologize for the fact that such a move has scrambled the internal logic of the comments of this user. To Beyond My Ken: I have no idea how to change your comments... and, moreover, it would be totally improper from my part to do so! Pldx1 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Template 1) {text of Proposed principle} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Proposed findings of fact About past whitewashing of the Nazi crimes 1)It is well-known that a large white-washing campaign concerning the Nazi crimes was undertaken by the victorious side, starting just after the end of the war, even during the WWII trials. (1) MacArthur protecting Hirohito, Churchill protecting Kesselring, and so on are proeminent major facts. (2) The US Army Historical Division was the supervisor of a large part of the German generals' memoirs. (3) The US Army War College in Carlisle invited repeatedly, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of the said generals to participate in a number of seminars and panel discussions with senior NATO leaders. (4) In both Germany's, the rebuilding of the Army to take part in the cold-war was more than often done by recycling 'not checked' people (a proportion of them requiring to be ousted afterwards). Therefore whitewashing of the Nazi crimes is surely not a recent phenomenon. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: This is an evaluation and analysis of content, which is not within ArbCom's remit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC) The whole case is about evaluation and analysis of content. Moreover, the fact that the governmental and military propaganda of the West was the core of the whitewashing industry concerning the Nazi crimes is the top most factor of how English speaking people perceive the events of 70 years ago. Trying to shift the guilt to the 'German generals' or Wikipedia or what else is nothing but another whitewashing attempt. Pldx1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC) About present whitewashing of the Nazi crimes 2)During the current procedure, Wikipedia has been depicted as the first or, may be, the second major actor of Nazi whitewashing in the Anglophone world of nowadays. K.e.coffman speaking: Despite the abundant World War II historiography published in the last 20 years, the popular perceptions of the German armed forces as an apolitical and professional institution that stood apart from the Nazi regime largely remains intact in the Anglophone world. The myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” lives on. Nowhere is it more apparent than on English Wikipedia... [5] David Stahel speaking: The myth of the clean Wehrmacht is far from dead, with two major sources still fuelling the legend in the Anglo-American world. The first is the persistent presence of the German generals' memoirs, where "half-truths, lies, omissions, and distortions coexist alongside truth." The second challenge is sometimes Wikipedia, where historical accuracy, at least on topics related to the Wehrmacht, can be altogether missing. Such rather strong assertions would have required rather strong proofs. Indeed, the opinion of an English speaking person of nowadays is shaped by many factors: movies, fanzines, social media, school books, hearsay, memories from the past, war-games and even history books. Ranking these factors without any study is only a scientific failure. Using weasel words as 'sometimes', 'can be' is even worse. A culprit is a culprit, not a perhaps culprit. This kind of statement should be stated according to : a killed person is killed, not a perhaps killed person. Moreover, Wikipedia influence depends largely on the topic, see [6] Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: The statement by Kec is a perfectly reasonable argument for an editor to make in the context of any content dispute. The remainder of this is, like the above, an evaluation and analysis of content which, again, is not within ArbCom's remit, and cannot and should not therefore be included as a "Finding of Fact" in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC) These two statements by K.e.coffman and David Stahel are not about a content dispute. They are the flagships of the present case. They are asserting that all the fancruft found in the articles about "die Träger" is not to be explained by the usual stupidities involved in the porn-stars or Pokemon articles, but at least also by an active POV-pushing towards the real life Nazi galaxy, past or even present. Such a strong assertion should have been proven by better arguments than historical accuracy can be altogether missing. Pldx1 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Yet we also have large numbers of featured articles and other high quality articles which cover war crimes of World War II, including as part of articles on battles and military personnel. The articles Peacemaker has taken the lead with are a good example of this. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC) About fuelling the clean Wehrmacht myth 3) At a superficial level, it doesn't seem that the en:wp articles are using a different brush to paint the behaviour of the 6864 Heer+Marine+Luftwaffe recipients of the KC and to paint the behaviour of the 458 Waffen-SS recipients. In any case, a differential study has never been provided to back up the assertion of "fuelling the myth of a clean Army". Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Kec has quoted the opinins of professional military historians to the effect that some of Wikipedia's articles are skewed to the "clean Wehrmacht" side. That, in and of itself, should be sufficient to raise concerns about our accuracy and neutrality on this controversial subject. To insist on a "differential study" before any action is taken is absurd: all that is required is a consensus among editors. IN any event, this, too, has no place as a "Finding of Fact" in an ArbCom case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) There were 4781 'Träger' in the army (Heer), and 458 in the SS. Most of them have (or at least have had) a stub or a full article. Once again, it doesn't seem that articles about Heer members are differently treated than the SS members. No study have been conducted to examine if the Heer' articles were more whitewashed than the SS' articles. On the contrary, the hall of shame maintained by Kec seems to prove that the problematic edits are proportionally distributed. Pldx1 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Milhist chevrons 4) At WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medal, the MilHist wiki project maintains, from 2009 on, a class of super-awards whose steps (Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds) mimic the steps of the Ritterkreuz of the past (Eichenlaub, Schwerter und Brillanten). This coincidence is not the happiest possible. At least, the 6 recipients of the highest class should have know better, since the awards were granted, inter allia, for articles either about the Ritterkreuz of the past, or involving some of its Träger. Recipient Oak Leaves Swords Diamonds Rank Hawkeye7 2009-04-01 2011-04-01 2013-03-01 1 Ian Rose 2009-12-01 2011-05-01 2013-09-01 2 MisterBee1966 2010-02-01 2011-10-01 2015-05-01 4 Parsecboy 2009-09-01 2010-05-01 2014-01-01 3 Peacemaker67 2013-09-01 2015-08-01 2017-07-01 6 Sturmvogel 66 2010-08-01 2011-12-01 2015-05-01 5 Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: This is evidence, not a finding. I'd support changing this but, as far as I'm aware, no-one has ever started a discussion proposing it and it's not for ArbCom to tell projects what to do on matters such as this. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC) All of Pldx1's contributions to the workshop are essentially evidence, and not proper workshop material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC) This is relevant to the case, as it was opened by ArbCom: anything that belongs to behaviour in the topic of "German war effort". But I agree that the opening itself is questionable (see below). Pldx1 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) There was no emergency 5)This case was opened in an alleged emergency situation. Kingdom and Country were on the verge to perish, we were told, due to the fact that a number of reputable mainstream historians find the en:wp coverage of the Nazi military inappropriately sympathetic, requiring to ask some hard questions about the editing environment and find a way to fix it. We were told that the emergency was so high that the case has to be opened with no initial scope, no list of involved parties, the due decorum being provided 'en route', when events permit. And the case was even explicitly enlarged to encompass inquiry about a systemic problem of bias/POV-pushing/whitewashing in this set of articles, i.e. pure content matters. One month later, one has to note that no evidence of the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" have ever been provided. Therefore, there was no emergency, and no reason to depart from the usual rules and procedures. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Proposed remedies Template Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Template 2) {text of proposed remedy} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Proposed enforcement Template 1) {text of proposed enforcement} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Template 2) {text of proposed enforcement} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Auntieruth55

Proposed principles

RFC and other procedures exist for a reason

1) RFC and other procedures exist for a reason, and Wikipedia has them in place to help us through problems such as this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Has K.e.coffman (or any other party) disregarded the outcome of any RFC that was held and reached consensus? Where was the consensus reached that he allegedly disregarded? Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

(I've just been informed that I'm actually a party here. So I'm moving my "comments by others" to here.) I agree that KeC has a lot to contribute to the project, and his enthusiasm is valuable. I'm concerned, though, that the wholesale changes/deletions/redirects he has made to a few thousand articles runs counter to community consensus, and devalues the contributions of others. — Preceding unsigned comment originally added by Auntieruth55 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is a reliable source

2) Reliable sources exist within the parameter of the writer's expertise. This is determined by experiences, for example, study, analysis and evaluated by peers. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral in and of themselves. Consequently, bias in sources does not make them unreliable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think KECs suggestion in this area would be a better basis, as long as it was expanded to include discussion of questionable and biased sources that Auntieruth has highlighted, and as I have suggested below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

KEC has stated that WP:QS is bright line. That is an opinion. It is representative of their black and white view. It does not acknowledge that there are ways of dealing with bias in sources other than deletion. One, is to be selective in what is sourced, confining use to factual matters and not opinion. The other is to not transpose inappropriate language from such a source into an article. Where this has been less than effective, there are remedies, such as copy-editing that are constructive in nature. If their are better sources per Nick-D then, of course, these should be used in preference. There are multiple parts to how this issue has presented itself.

• KECs solution to the problem is destructive, by removing content, rater than constructively addressing the problem, improving the sourcing and selectively editing or removing that which is genuinely most problematic.
• Their approach is black and white and generally without compromise.
• Their comments are frequently broad statements of opinion without substantiation which are not a foundation for objective discussion.
• There identified issues with the accuracy of their representation.

As an aside, I would mention the two works of Felix Römer, the earlier is in English and is acknowledged in WP articles. The more recent is only available in German and would tend to qualify the myth of the clean Wehrmach yet I did not see evidence of its use? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While true, this doesn't fully reflect the crux of the issue. The concerns are that clearly unreliable sources have been used (eg, works by Nazis, far right extremists and amateur historians praising Nazi war heroes) and that biased reliable sources have not been used with sufficient care - including consulting other sources to place what they provide in context or using the most recent scholarship. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Myth of Clean Wehrmacht

1) It is indeed a myth, and thus has elements of truth and elements of fiction. This is what makes myths effective: they "explain" a phenomenon that is otherwise explainable. See, for example, modern uses of myths for examples of how myths become effective in national story-telling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Definitely not something we can touch. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not remotely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point, but agree this is outside Arbcom's scope. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think that ArbCom should be ruling on issues relating to content such as this. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Using request for Proposed mergers/deletions remedy

1) K.e.coffman is prohibited from redirecting articles without using the proposed merge or articles for deletion procedures, doing no more than 3 at a time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this. KEC sought community consensus for a change to notability regarding recipients of the Knight's Cross, got (a weak) one, then implemented it. Personally, I think the baby got thrown out with the bathwater with the KC articles and a lot of people commenting at WT:BIO were misled or did not understand about what sources (like Thomas and Wegmann) were available for them, but other than being overzealous, basically he has (sort of) followed the rules here, and bringing him back to proposed mergers and AfD isn't going to help the encyclopaedia or recreate the 1,700 KC redirects (which would be contrary to the current community consensus in any case). If he started a new redirect campaign against another class of articles, I would just expect that he get properly informed community consensus before doing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

KEC did seek community consensus for change in the Knights Cross, which was weak. It felt like an onslaught of redirecting, and difficult to follow. When he couldn't get consensus on dozens of them, he went to Bio, and decisions made there affected MIlHis. Notability guidelines for Mil Hist biographies appear to be different than those for biography. We were all left with the need to trust KEC's decisions about notability, and the number of redirects is excessive. auntieruth (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Where is the evidence that Kec's redirection of articles has been of such a disruptive nature that a sanction is justified? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• K.e.coffman had been doing AfDs, and the community got tired of it because most of them were closing as either delete or redirect, so there was a discussion at WT:BIO (as has been presented in evidence), and K.e.coffman's proposal gained consensus after a formal closure. They were acting in accord with what they thought consensus was on the notability guideline for biographies. ArbCom should not sanction people for following what by all indications was consensus both at AfD and at WT:BIO. If there is consensus that they should start going to AfD again rather than follow the consensus reached at WT:BIO, I'm sure they would follow it.
  ArbCom shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning people for following a consensus in a formal close. Other than the LargelyRecyclable stuff this is probably the only area of the case I am familiar with because I participated in the AfDs and the discussion (biographical notability being a concern of mine). My recollection here is that this was K.e.coffman's way of responding to concerns about the large number of AfDs, not some plot to have stealth deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I linked the WP:BIO thread and it's good that K.e.coffman himself catalogued the redirects he did for the Knight's Cross people (around 1700 redirects). He didn't catalogue his later flying ace redirects though, but I'd estimate that was only 50-200 redirects (Fall 2017). I think the "rough consensus" close had repercussions because while it said that the award alone doesn't mean notability (there has to be WP:GNG as well), there was no chance to assess GNG other than to trust Ke.coffman's view. In my evidence, I gave one example (Adolf Dickfeld) that I reverted and for which I'm certain meets GNG. I think he went too far and the number of redirects is pretty extraordinary. 'Baby out with the bathwater' is the best way to describe it. But maybe you are right and it's just the difficulty of managing a massive encyclopedia with so few editors? --Pudeo (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: I think your example is a reason that this sanction would be unnecessary, looking at the edit history of that article, once you contested it, K.e.coffman (courtesy ping) didn’t edit war or revert or even attempt to list it at AfD: the article still stands today because they listened to you. The Knights Cross issue is one where the community as a whole at AfD and at WT:BIO came up with a consensus that most of these weren’t notable. AfD, to be honest, was being overwhelmed with these, and so the consensus at BIO arrived for the revert compromise. That appears to be the current community consensus. I just find it very difficult to stomach the idea that an editor will be sanctioned and be told to do what they were originally doing for following a compromise consensus meant to make what they were originally doing less burdensome on the community. If people want all these to go back to AfD again, the solution seems to be to hold a new RfC, not for ArbCom to override consensus and sanction an editor who thought they were following it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In regards to this it is well established that WikiProjects cannot override a community consensus. K.e.coffman's thesis is that the military history project was dealing with these in a way inconsistent with project wide policy and guidelines (may or may not be true, that's up the the arbs to decide.) If someone feels a local consensus of a WikiProject is contradicting community-wide principles, then you take up the issue on the larger community page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Using Request for comment remedy

2) K.e.coffman is prohibited removing details from articles on a large scale without obtaining a consensus through the RfC process no more than 3 at a time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll poke the whole I poked in a proposal above here. Are we talking about removing anything from an article with the word "details"? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This can't be one sided. Other editors also failed to use RfCs here. You don't need to be the 'proposer' of a change to start an RfC about it. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Limit interaction between LargelyRecyclable and K.e.Coffman

2) LargelyRecycle and KEC should have limited interaction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is unenforceable as written. Either propose an interaction ban or spell out how you want to limit their interaction (if not a standard IBAN). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Second this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This should be an IBAN both ways. KECs mass deletions, source removal and "civil" POV pushing has contributed to the issues between him and LR (and other editors). If ArbCom can't recognise and deal with KECs behaviour as well as LRs, we have a problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Both users have contributions to make. LR seems quite frustrated with KeC's large scale deletions/moves/maneuvers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntieruth55 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the correct comments by @Premeditated Chaos and DeltaQuad: there has been no evidence presented that K.e.coffman has acted inappropriately towards LargelyRecyclable. Multiple administrators have commented here saying that they consider LargelyRecyclable's conduct both towards K.e.coffman to be problematic, and evidence has been presented against them both in terms of how the have interacted with K.e.coffman, and their interactions with Bishonen during this case. As a basic principle, we don't sanction the harassed for the actions of the harasser. I support an IBAN (either in addition to a site ban or on its own), but K.e.coffman should not be subject to one if there is no evidence of their wrongdoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Peacemaker67

Proposed principles

NPOV

1) Articles covering the German war effort in WWII should include material covering military as well as political, social and ethical/criminal aspects of the subject to ensure a neutral point of view is achieved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's a content decision. ArbCom does not rule on content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The question of what material should be included in any given article is a content decision. We do not rule on content decisions. We do not dictate the contents of articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In general PMC is correct. In extreme cases, editors' handling of a content issue can cross the line into a user-conduct problem, such as where sources are being blatantly misused or articles skewed toward one side of a controversy. But even in such a case, we typically would respond in a less prescriptive manner than this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To be fair, this is about achieving NPOV. Surely ArbCom rules on that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem here, Newyorkbrad. KEC has removed reliable sources on "military" aspects and deleted most of the "military" material from articles, leaving only the political, social and ethical/criminal aspects. Thus, articles are skewed towards those latter areas that remain. If that is not a user conduct problem undermining NPOV, what is? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

4 comments about bias and neutrality in writing biographies of war aces. (1) Historian Peter Burke argues that bias is best corrected by presenting multiple views of an historical subject. The historian's task is to create an account of the history of x that will describe that x did the deeds, etc. Historians’ reconstruction of events is built upon the views of those who witnessed them, those who participated in them, etc., and is normally less biased than the views of participants, but it can only go as far as the sources take it. After reading so many of these articles on the Luftwaffe fighter aces, it's clear that there is at least one thing they have in common: most of them were crazy about airplanes, flying, etc. Knowing this intricate detail helps me understand part of the mentality of the fighter pilot. (1.a) As a subset of this, the material available on the Luftwaffe aces is specific about the aces. It describes the Luftwaffe aces and their activities. To borrow an illustration from McCullagh, if I write that Marlon Brando was surly, and use aone of the many pictures of Marlon Brando at his surliest, the image of Brando is confirmed. Was Brando always surly? Or did he simply make his name by acting surly? Describing him as surly is certainly confirmed by his picture(s), but is it bias? (See C. Behan McCullagh, "Bias in Historical Description, Intepretation and Explanation." History and Theory, vol 39, No1, Feb 2000, pp. 39-66.) (2) Historians postulate two kinds of causation in historical activity: Ideological-intentionalist and structural-functionalist. The first ascribes the Holocaust to Hitler and the German people, both driven by anti-Semitic ideology. The second attributes the Holocaust to patterns of obedience found in any bureaucracy or army in which participants/soldiers fail to or are unable to consider the morality of the policies which they conscientiously implement according to duty. An explanation in terms of one is incomplete because it blames only the Germans; an explanation using the second blames only the system. (See A.D. Moses, “Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and his critics," History and Theory 37, 1998, 194-219.) A more balanced explanation incorporates both, and these histories are being written. (3) We as editors are completely dependent upon sources, and the sources examining the German War Effort are evolving concurrently with the writing of these articles, but most importantly the material on the Luftwaffe has not kept pace with the material on the ground war (see for example, Ben Shepherd, "The Clean Wehrmacht, the War of Extermination and Beyound," The Historical Journal, vol 52, No. 2 (June 2009, pp. 455-473). (4) It is normal for sources to evolve over time. In different periods, historians have paid attention to different aspects of history. Historical accounts of the Industrial Revolution reflect different economic interests of different periods over time. As more work becomes available on the men involved in these campaigns, I expect the articles to undergo a revision. Causal processes matter, and these are often identified in light of some current event. Historians have of debated whether the Civil was was a dispute over slavery, states' rights, or economic interests, or perhaps all three. For example, Charles and Mary Beard argued that slavery was not the issue—it was the economy. From the perspective of economic determinism, this is true. For them, everything was about the economy. But to say that the CW was about the economy ignores the other balancing interests. The foundation of the southern economy, the plantation system, depending on slavery. auntieruth (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Achieving NPOV in biographical articles

2) To achieve a neutral point of view, military aspects of biographical articles of German participants in WWII should include service in WWI, dates of ranks achieved, awards, and details of battles fought in. Biographical articles should also cover place and date of birth and death, details of early life and life post-military service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another content decision. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, the question of what material should be included in any given article is a content decision. We do not rule on content decisions. We do not dictate the contents of articles one way or another. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PMC. This is the kind of thing that MILHIST needs to decide itself. We can't wave our magic club and make it so. Katie^talk 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again, this is about NPOV, not content. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken your understanding is not correct, perhaps you should read the evidence of all editors? KEC removed reliable sources as well as unreliable ones. In what way would information about service in WWI, dates of birth and death, dates of ranks achieved or any of the other things I have mentioned skew an article towards the myth of the clean Wehrmacht? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My understanding is that KEC's removals had nothing to do with whether the material was "military" as opposed to "political" or "social", but was undertaken either because the sources cited were sub-standard, or the inclusion of the specific material was skewing the relevant article in a particular, non-neutral, way, specifically towards the "Clean Wehrmacht" theory. As expressed above by arbitrators, ArbCom has no place in determining content per se, however, behavior which is detrimental to the creation of a well-sourced and neutral encyclopedia does come under their purview, and deliberately skewing articles to reflect a specific historical POV is definitely an example of such behavior. If his actions were intended to prevent such non-neutrality, then KEC's removals should be applauded by the community, and not sanctioned by ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've read the evidence, but not all evidence is created equal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• This edit[7] is a typical removal of "intricate detail". Please explain why having the birth and death place for instance in a biography would skew the article in a non-neutral way. I mean, great, he removed "highly decorated" from the lead which I can accept but other mass removals are fully against consensus and policies. Or perhaps we need a new biography policy for Nazi biographies? I'm not joking. If we, as a community, decide that because Nazism is an uniquely evil ideology, having the birth place of a Nazi general in Wikipedia makes it a hagiography, then we should have a new set of standard for these articles alone. --Pudeo (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

KEC has removed reliable sources

1) KEC has removed reliable sources from many articles covering the German war effort of WWII, despite their having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of articles and ensuring a neutral point of view is maintained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this aspect better framed as an NPOV issue or as an application, or attempted application, of WP:UNDUE? In principal, a given statement might be accurate, reliably sourced, relevant to the subject, and yet still not be included in an article because it's of lesser importance or including it would place too much emphasis on one aspect of the topic. Of course whether such an omission is warranted or not in a given instance, or group of instances, is something on which editors may disagree; but typically it becomes an NPOV issue only where the article content is being skewed toward a particular side of an underlying controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My point here is that NPOV requires fair and proportionate coverage of all non-fringe views of the subject. A military perspective of a military person is not fringe view unless the material is promoting something like the myth of the clean Wehrmacht or denying the criminality of a known war criminal. Non-fringe views include the military perspective, which is probably going to be the primary perspective on a military subject, and reliable military sources provide that perspective. Removing them removes the military perspective, thus undermining NPOV by making that perspective less fairly represented and makes the article less in proportion. As far as BMK's comments regarding KECs actions go, that is simply wrong. In this case, he was skewing articles away from a NPOV by deleting sources of information about military aspects of the subject. No-one has shown that the sources KEC deleted, as detailed in my evidence, were unreliable or even biased. If he had been adding material to improve NPOV, say information about culpability for war crimes, then that would be improving the article and making it more neutral, but deleting reliable sources as I have shown in my evidence does just the opposite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Peacemaker: "KEC's editing behaviour undermines NPOV by removing 'military' sources and material from articles" (quotes in the original) [8]: I feel that this amounts to special pleadings, as well as above: military perspective; reliable military sources; military aspects etc. Sources are either reliable or not; there's no special dispensation for "military sources" and "military material". All content is subject to NPOV, V, NOR, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If KEC's actions were, as it appears to me, geared toward preventing articles from being less accurate or neutral, or preventing POV sources from being utilized, then there can be no sanction for those actions, as they epitomize what editors are supposed to do in improving the encyclopedia. It's also to be noted that -- as covered in any arbitration case that deals with WP:FRINGE material -- WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to every conceivable point of view. Just as we report what the consensus of mainstream scientists say, so we report what the consensus of mainstream military historians say, and while other opinions can be mentioned, they are not given equal value per WP:WEIGHT. So "ensuring a neutral point of view is maintained" is considerably more complicated than this suggested finding indicates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

KEC has deleted huge amounts of uncontroversial material

2) KEC has deleted huge amounts of uncontroversial information from articles covering the German war effort of WWII, contrary to WP:NOCITE and WP:PRESERVE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is evidence of KECs long-term anti-military POV pushing, as detailed in my evidence. KEC has had it pointed out to him many times what an appropriate level of detail is in a biographical article, with reference to non-GWE military biographical FAs (as seen in my evidence), yet he continues to delete this information. This is the sort of long-term POV pushing that WP always struggles to deal with, and KEC should be sanctioned for it, it has removed a huge amount of useful and relevant biographical information and undermines the encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Material that is "uncontroversial" can also be trivial or padding or in other ways a violation of WP:WEIGHT -- which it is worth noting is part of WP:NPOV, and therefore is policy and mandatory, while WP:NOCITE is merely an editing guideline. In addition, WP:PRESERVE suggests "preserving appropriate content", but there is no automatic formula to determine whether material removed from an article is "appropriate", it can only be determined on a case-by-case basis through WP:CONSENSUS discussions on article talk pages. It is most definitely not determined by ArbCom, which is why evaluation of content is not within their remit, per se. This finding, therefore, is not one which is appropriate for an arbitration case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Birth place for instance, is never trivial in a biography.[9]. So good luck to anyone who has the time to go through those 2000 articles case-by-case and un-do the damage. --Pudeo (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone would argue that every single edit made by KEC is beyond reproach, since such an argument about any editor would be ludicrous on its face. Everyone makes mistakes, but citing the same edit twice (see "#Achieving NPOV in biographical articles" above) as somehow being convincing evidence that KEC's editing is, in general and on balance, in dire need of sanctioning is hardly convincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a reasonable view, but it's just not one edit. KEC included the removal of birth place in his "streamline infobox" edits in several articles atleast in Dec 2016 [10][11][12][13] and March 2016 as detailed in Peacemaker67's evidence. I'm not saying that removing a birth place is a massive mistake. But multiplying that error in dozens of articles is not good, especially if he did it just because he thinks that a certain level of detail makes the biographies somehow too laudatory. --Pudeo (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

KEC undermined NPOV

1) KEC’s removal of reliable sources and deletion of early life and military information has undermined achieving a neutral point of view on articles covering the German war effort of WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

It may make the articles less detailed, and that may or may not be a good thing, but how does it violate NPOV specifically? Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Re from Peacemaker: "This is evidence of KECs long-term anti-military POV pushing" & "pointed out to him many times what an appropriate level of detail is in a biographical article, with reference to non-GWE military biographical FAs" [14] & "removed... huge amounts of military information from hundreds of articles" [15]:

A. the sources were not "reliable" (see examples below)

B. the material was uncited

C. micro-stub articles are not FAs, so it's unclear why PM brings up FA-level of detail here

D. the sources that PM alleges contain material of "clear encyclopaedic value" do not contain it.

On the last point, see for example this diff from Peacemaker's evidence. In this TP discussion, he defended Scherzer, a militaria source, and offered to email me a page from it: Talk:Friedrich-Georg_Eberhardt#Scherzer. Peacemaker never did so (despite a follow-up), while I procured a sample from the source myself.

It's disingenuous to present Scherzer as having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article and assuring NPOV is maintained, when the sample I saw did not contain such material.

For examples of unreliable sources, see edit summary search for "Neo-Nazi publication": [16]. This begs the question, why were there so many "neo-Nazi publications" in MILHIST articles, inserted by a four-term MILHIST coordinator, MisterBee 1966, and defended by a five-term coordinator, Hawkeye7? (Thread).

I.e. wouldn't Peacemaker's energy be better spent policing the users (and coordinators) who persistently insert and defend unreliable sources, vs me? I think that's a better path towards non-"undermining of NPOV". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is repetitive, essentially a repeat of what the last two suggested findings said. As such, the same arguments hold against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

KEC is admonished for long-term civil anti-military POV pushing behaviour

1) Over several years, KEC has removed reliable military history sources and a huge amount of relevant biographical information from thousands of biographical GWE articles, including dates and places of birth and death, details of early life, promotions and awards, which has undermined the building of the encyclopaedia in this area. KECs action remains unexplained, but demonstrates a long-term anti-military POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Cinderella157

Proposed principles

Misrepresentations in statements and evidence

1) Misrepresentations can occur in a number of ways: by misordering events or statements; by not accurately quoting or paraphrasing; by significant omissions; or, by not providing sufficient context. A misrepresentation occurs when fuller context and/or accurate recount provides a substantially different impression. Misrepresentations are a form of incivility. Repeated or gross misrepresentations cannot be attributed to "good faith" errors. Where misrepresentations made in "bad faith" state or imply a misdeed or misconduct, they are an explicit form of personal attack. Such actions cannot be tolerated in dispute resolution venues such as ANI and ArbCom. Any evidence based process that assess conduct is reliant upon the veracity of evidence and statements presented to it. Any attempt to present evidence of questionable veracity potentially undermines the integrity of the process. Notwithstanding reasonable "due process" (ie, show cause) such actions must be dealt with to preserve the integrity of and confidence in the process. Discretionary sanctions may be applied depending upon the severity of such a transgression. These might include but not be limited to: dismissal of a case (with prejudice) where the transgressor is the case proposer; a summary negative finding against a party; or, excluding a non-party from further participation.

Struck section moved to remedies per comment by TonyBalloni. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't love the way this stretches the definitions of "civility" and "explicit personal attacks". I also think ArbCom needs to be careful about endorsing something like this, because while there may be cases where it's not so black and white as it appears here, and this could easily be wikilawyered or gamed as a shield against being brought to ArbCom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If you need to misrepresent matters to make a case, you have no case to make. WP:CIVIL in respect to uncivil conduct states: quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. An unsubstantiated allegation is considered a personal attack. An allegation may have the appearance of credibility but be based on misrepresentations. Made knowingly, they are tantamount to a false accusation. The statement of principle is no impediment to a person acting in good faith but a substantial warning to those that might act in bad faith. Unraveling misrepresentations is necessary to a fair outcome. As a principle, it may go to reducing the need to. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can we avoid legal terms like “due process”? We’re a website. Also, discretionary sanctions authorization is a remedy, not a principle. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

2) Civil POV pushing is a long-term pattern of behaviour. Its long-term nature, subtlety in execution and at least the outward semblance of civility make it difficult to identify and deal with. Such behaviour undermines and disrupts the WP community and is a breach of public trust.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What POV do you believe K.e.coffman is pushing? Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• I support this. This is exactly what KEC is doing, as I've tried to point out, and it is something that WP struggles to address across the board even though it undermines NPOV. I also don't see any legal implication here, TonyBallioni. What part of this is legalistic in your view? Perhaps the latter sentence should be reworded as "a breach of community trust"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni, I tend to agree, but we still have to explain how difficult to deal with and insidious long-term civil POV pushing is and how it undermines trust. Would you be happy to amend with an amendment as I suggest, or just the dropping of "public"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni and Peacemaker67, I was trying to convey the trust that the RW has in WP I might suggest: ;and, compromises the integrity and public perception of the project. or even: a breach of the trust the real world has in WP. Not hung up on the actual words. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni and Peacemaker67, what I was trying to say are two things. The first is the impact internally and I think this aligns with what PM is about. TB, I find your observation ironic, given the case :), the on-wiki issue is more important, so I can live without it. I am most likely going to support anything you both agree on. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day Newyorkbrad. An anti-military POV. Demonstrated by his removal of details of military service, dates of promotions, awards etc from hundreds of articles on notable military people,[17] along with reliable sources for that sort of information.[18] There would be very few bio articles in the GWE area that haven't received this treatment. For more detail and diffs see my evidence already linked here, but also that of Cinderella157 [19] and Auntieruth55.[20] Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, in the first instance, KEC appears to have a perception that article size or a certain level of detail makes an article too laudatory. In this respect, KEC's deletions have not been confined to what they assess as derived from questionable sources. And some of their actions in these respects appear highly questionable, as presented in my evidence. More recently, another theme appears to be taking form. I would refer to Historiography of World War II. Historiography is a term that has been bandied about here a lot and sometimes not always accurately. This particular article identifies that different nationalities have different historiographic traditions depending on how they were affected and how they participated in the war. KEC relies heavily on S&D, who have tied an Anglophone view of the GWE to a cold war reaction. Interestingly too, the discusssion of revisionism there is somewhat different from how KEC uses it. In my own experience of post WWII Australia, there was a strong anti-Japanese sentiment fueled and sustained by treatment of prisoners after the fall of Singapore and other war crimes. On the otherhand, Australian soldiers are know to have retaliated in kind. Australia's historiographical tradition of WWII developed in this context but continues to evolve to a more balanced understanding of the combined elements impacting events: social, political, military and ethical/criminal. In the case of writing on the Battle of Buna–Gona, I was criticised for not writing on Japanese war crimes. While there is plenty of material writing on this in respect to closely related events, the sources did not support the inclusion in that article. Writing the Kokoda Track campaign, I was criticised for not including material on Australian war crimes. It was not something that I had consciously ignored, there was but the merest coverage, easily overlooked but I embraced this criticism.

My point is that nationalist hisoriographical traditions on the GWE are biased and represent a POV ranging from white (or nearly so) through various shades of grey, to black. My evidence based observation is that KEC appears to have a POV that is closer to black than a neutral and appropriate shade of dark grey. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, let’s avoid phrases that have legal implications. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 Breach of public trust is a crime in some countries (example). I’m sure it wasn’t what is intended here, but the less legal terminology we have the better. ArbCom isn’t a court, and editors aren’t government officials. This is my general position i.r.t. most ArbCom stuff: it has enough quasi-judicial trappings that adding legal terminology in when not necessary isn’t ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, sorry for not responding to that earlier! It’s late here and just saw the first part

I wouldn’t call it a breach of community trust unless the user was an admin (we typically see that type of language in desysop cases, and that isn’t happening here.) I think the text principle is fine without that bit, but if there needs to be a section about trust, community trust is preferable phrasing to “public trust.” TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I think it’s beyond the remit of ArbCom to comment on factual statements as to the impact editing has outside of Wikipedia. It seems you and Peacemaker are trying to say something different here. For what Peacemaker seems to be saying, I’d go with can contribute to an atmosphere of distrust in the community (or something of the sort.)

To your point, I’d go with a reference to WP:5P and point out that it undermines the principles of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't make much sense to me. If someone is advocating for something in a civil way, and also not edit warring, what's the problem? An ArbCom finding along these lines would set a very bad precedent. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass actions

3) Actions across a large number of articles that are identical or substantially similar and not inconsequential or insignificant in nature should not be undertaken without first achieving a consensus for the specific action in an appropriate forum. If consensus is unclear, a formal close may be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misrepresentations in statements and evidence

1) That KEC (and others) has made substantial and repeated misrepresentations in respect to parties and non-parties. Such misrepresentations alleged or imply misconduct or inappropriate conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In respect to KEC and myself: at "Alopogetics", they represent that I have defended "SS reenactment". As pointed out here, in respect to similar allegations and misrepresentations by Mastcell, this is a matter of WP being neutral - either explicitly or implicitly. The material makes, in WP's voice an implied syllogism which is logically flawed if nothing else. There is an allegation of impropriety attached to reasonable circumspection.

In the same section of evidence and immediately following, KEC makes representations in respect to my comments in the RFRA with respect to Hoepner and Leeb. My statement regardless of accuracy is circumspection consistent with the observation by Euryalus at Talk:Erich Hoepner/GA1. My reasonable circumspection has been misrepresented.

In the case of Leeb, the article does not establish the link through citation of sources, between what Leeb is "alleged" to have done in one part of the article and what they were convicted of doing in another part of the article. I have identified a legitimate deficiency in the article which has been misrepresented.

KEC continues: Complaining about war crimes “disrupt[ing] the chronicle” betrays a dated / hobbyist POV that seeks to compartmentalise and minimise unpalatable aspects of military history, just as the 'clean Wehrmacht' proponents did in the 1950s. KEC has asserted an opinion as if it were a matter of fact, where, in reality, it is an unsubstantiated opinion and must be treated as such. I have commented on similar behaviour in respect to KEC's behaviour and conduct on talk pages. I acknowledge that my observations there might fall to same but arise from my training as a teacher and specific subject material. In the case of Leeb, it makes sense to me to create a direct link between the actions alleged and what resulted in his conviction as a war criminal.

The final part of my statement referred to the distinction between implicit and explicit complicity in war crimes. I have acknowledge that every commander is implicitly responsible for the actions of their subordinates. This is undeniable.

I submit that in both cases, KEC has made significant misrepresentations. These have been made as allegations. These are not isolated (ie, further instances can be provided). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) .

Comment by others:

Civil POV pushing

2) That KEC has engaged in conduct that may be characterised as "civil POV pushing" in nature and/or fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Civil POV pushing is overtly civil but not necessarily intrinsically so. A POV can be specifically defined as to how a particular perspective or theory is represented in articles compared with other theories or perspectives. More broadly defined, it can go to issues of how and article is present, such as detail. As I have said, there are elements of good in what KEC has done but their actions have been largely destructive in nature rather than constructive and their manner, while overtly civil has been confrontational.

They have created or edited peripheral articles (such as on authors) to give credibility to their actions. As identified in evidence, there are issues, including weight and accuracy. There are significant issues of verifiability and misrepresentation of sources in KEC's HAIG article. There is evidence that this carries through to articles. They have routinely misrepresented guidelines in discussion, which has elements of wikilawyering and there is evidence of forum shopping. While the ends may have some merit, it is a question of the means. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There is reason to conclude that KEC has not acted in good faith. For example, there is the HAIG FA, where there are numerous cases of citations not aligning to verify the article text. There are also other similar cases provided in evidence. Given that KEC has accused others of such actions in the course of the case (and in edit summaries and talk, to my recollection), such actions strongly indicate bad faith. At Wehrmachtbericht, KEC has removed text that identifies a name mention as an award, where they were reasonably aware of the primary source making it an award (see evidence) strongly suggests bad faith. Subsequently removing date summaries of mentions, after advocating this rater than including transcripts, indicates bad faith. Deleting material en masse on the basis that it is poorly sourced, as opposed to more constructive remedies suggests bad faith. Off site actions indicate bad faith. The mocking nature of their user page and that links can readily identify "targeted" users suggests bad faith. A post at MilHist appears to be a personal attack and suggests bad faith. Misrepresenting guidelines to make a point indicates wikilawyering and suggests bad faith. After reverting material World War II reenactment, they denied the relevance of the prior move discussion because it was a move discussion, even though comments there were the substantive basis for the removal of the material they reinstated. Such denial suggests bad faith. Repeated misrepresentations in this case suggest bad faith. I could give more examples.

TonyBallioni, I do not imply by my comments in your section that you have acted in bad faith or incorrectly or even, that you are necessarily wrong. I am; however, making an objective observation in regard to your conclusions and how you have come to them. I investigated KEC in my supplementary evidence. My "hypothesis" was that I would find evidence that would incriminate KEC. I have attempted to do so objectively. AuntieRuth has commented on research in a similar light. In my case studies, I have observed fair and foul. I have noted my observations, my conclusions and their basis. I have excluded (I hope) what might be attributed to good faith. I have made a diligent attempt not to make misrepresentations (no implication to TonyB). I hope that this might give some context to my observations in your section. As you observed in our discussion at my TP: I get that you are coming from a good place here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

ArbCom and ANI to deal with gross or repeated misrepresentation

1a) Notwithstanding reasonable "due process" (ie, show cause) such actions must be dealt with to preserve the integrity of and confidence in the process. Discretionary sanctions may be applied depending upon the severity of such a transgression. These might include but not be limited to: dismissal of a case (with prejudice) where the transgressor is the case proposer; a summary negative finding against a party; or, excluding a non-party from further participation.

Moved from where it was initially part of the principle. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

1b) That ArbCom pages specifically warn about misrepresentations as they do, about incivility and personal attacks. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not attached to "due process" TonyBallioni but wished the statement to be consistent with the principles of natural justice. Suggest: Notwithstanding an opportunity to show cause, or Notwithstanding an opportunity to responde,. I note that ArbCom already has significant warnings and powers to deal with personal attacks and incivility. The principle and this proposed remedy simply make the issue of misrepresentations explicit in respect to incivility and misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

I note that the comment Beyond My Ken (below) is either "off-topic" or misunderstands the nature of the principle and the related remedy - both of which relate to the making of misrepresentations in the course of a case. To the specific comment re natural justice, it is an ethical principle. To suggest or imply that ArbCom should act in isolation from moral considerations is an a moral proposition and a considerable dilemma in the context of the GWE and the moral issues that arise from the subject.

Comment by others:

It's a category error to see arbitration as in any sense about any kind of "justice", not least of all "natural justice". We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and the purpose of our policies, rules and norms is to make it possible to do that with as few unnecessary impediments as possible. That is what should lie behind every decision made by ArbCom and most of those made by admins. If the goal of enabling editors to edit can be reached while still being as fair to possible to all parties in a dispute, that's fine, but if it can't be, then ArbCom must make its decisions with no consideration of "natural justice", and only be concerned about minimizing disruption to allow the encyclopedia to be improved.

At some point, though, even though ArbCom does not specifically deal with content, the arbs must be concerned that not all editing is created equal, most of it improves the encyclopedia, but some of it degrades it. Contributions by editors with a specific POV which serve to skew an article in the direction of their viewpoint damage the encyclopedia, doing harm to its credibility, and if the community cannot police those editors, then ArbCom is the only Wikipedia institution which can. That means that while the committee cannot and should not deal with specific content, they must take whatever steps are necessary to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia -- not the integrity of the arbitration process, but that of the thing we're all supposedly here to create and improve. Thus, the arbs need to look at the editing of the people posting the very biased "findings" here (most of which simply cannot be used as actually findings in an arbitration case), and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent that skewing from continuing.

A number of these editors have made complaints about KEC's editing, and some of those complaints may have merit, but what they have consistently failed to do is to show that KEC is atempting to bias articles in a certain direction. There's no surprise in that, for what the evidence actually shows is that, in general and overall, KEC's editing has the effect of keeping articles properly neutral by preventing the whitewashing articles about some officers of the Wehrmacht. The same cannot be said for the complaining editors, who, the evidence shows, are -- either deliberately or simply by not understanding the effect of their editing -- the ones skewing the articles is the direction of the "Clean Wehrmacht", a FRINGE historical theory which is not generally accepted by mainstream historians.

It's worth noting, also, that the editors I am referring to also control WikiProject Military History, which points out the danger which can come about when WikiProjects basically claim ownership rights to articles.

As for this specific proposed remedy, it's well beyond ArbCom's remit, or that of admins, to police "gross misrepresentation" in specific edits to specific articles -- they can do so with BLP because we have a specific BLP policy which demands it -- but certainly the committee can craft something on the order of a "extremely reliable sources required" form of discretionary sanctions, so that admins have the tools they need to deal with misrepresentation and using unreliable or biased sources. The irony is that if this is done, and such a sanction is propagated, it is much more likely that the work of the complaining editors will be subjected to sanctioning, and not that of KEC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:K.e.coffman

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

"German war effort" topic area is controversial

1) The subject of Germany's participation in World War II has been a subject of mythologising outside of Wikipedia <---added for clarity, with the continued presence of biased / apologist / dated sources, both popular history and even older academic publications (see myth of the clean Wehrmacht). This creates conditions for conscious or unconscious systemic bias to be introduced into Wikipedia as the reflection of such sources.

2) Variant suggested by Peacemaker: "There is unconscious systemic bias in [Wikipedia's] military history articles, likely due to systemic bias in military history sources that do not fully examine the political, social and ethical/criminal aspects of military history".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see evidence by Nick-D: "The historiography on Germany in World War II is evolving" [21] and "K.e.coffman has found highly problematic material" [22], as well as Drmies: "What K.e.coffman is up against" [23] and K.e.coffman: "Is there systemic bias?" [24].

See also: Statement by David Stahel: "The myth of the clean Wehrmacht is far from dead". This FoF is intended to raise awareness of challenges present in this topic area, along with evolving historiography. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been adduced of anyone doing any mythologising. There may have been unsuitable "fanboi" sources like Kurowski used too freely by a few editors, but there is no evidence that any editor has engaged in "mythologising". There is unconscious systemic bias towards military aspects in GWE articles (as there is in non-GWE military articles), but as I've detailed in my evidence this is a combination of systemic bias in military history sources (including in the Oxford Companion to Military History among many other high-quality sources). I remind ArbCom of my evidence about the fact that WP policy allows for the use of questionable and biased sources, if used with care and attributed in-text as necessary. At best, this FoF should be that "there is unconscious systemic bias in military history articles, likely due to systemic bias in military history sources that do not fully examine the political, social and ethical/criminal aspects of military history". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I added "outside of Wikipedia" to the first sentence for clarity. The continued presence of the myth in historiography then "creates conditions..." etc. The Oxford Companion to Military History example is a good one and illustrates the point I was trying to make.

That aside, I felt that LargelyRecyclable's editing was a 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, as noted in my RFAR statement [25]. I believe that my evidence supports it: "Apologetics" & "LR misrepresented sources."

Or just see LR's edits to the Hoepner article. When I asked the historians to review his removals, they were perturbed. Melson described it as a lack of competence, for example. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the variant suggested by Peacemaker as well, as it aligns with what I was trying to convey. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"German war effort" topics have been the subject of problematic editing

2) The following has occurred: use of unreliable (dated / apologist / fringe) sources; misuse of reliable sources; hounding; harassment; aspersions; personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• For use of unreliable (dated / apologist / fringe) sources, see evidence by Assayer: "Dubious, unreliable and primary sources are routinely defended" [26]; MastCell: "WWII articles" [27]; Bishonen: "Auntieruth55 has defended use of unreliable sources" [28] and K.e.coffman: "Questionable and fringe sources are accepted" [29].
• For misuse of reliable sources, see evidence by K.e.coffman: "LR misrepresented sources"[30].
• For hounding and harassment, see "Evidence presented by Tony Ballioni" (5 sections) [31] and MastCell: "LargelyRecyclable" [32].
• For aspersions and personal attacks, see Bishonen: "LargelyRecyclable in November 2017" [33], "Cinderella157 November 2017 + April 2018" [34] and "Auntieruth55 has shown strong bias in regard to incivility towards Coffman" [35]; evidence by K.e.coffman: "LR cast aspersions" [36], "Peacemaker cast aspersions"[37], and "Advocacy" [38].

The above behaviours have taken place in articles; on article talk pages; in noticeboard discussions; and during this ArbCom case. See also: Statement by Geoffrey P. Megargee: "I find it a bit humorous that 'hard-core anti-Nazi'...". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is just re-statement of KECs evidence. I have addressed the above as it applies to me in my own evidence, but I am not going to rehash that here with diffs. Needless to say I reject his accusations against me, as explained in my evidence. There have been some unreliable sources used (not by me) in GWE articles (such as Kurowski, largely dealt with now by KEC himself, although he has overreached and removed other sources from hundreds of articles as well), but ArbCom should note that our policies allow for the use of questionable and biased sources with care and in-text attribution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On Franz Kurowski (unreliable sources ... such as Kurowski, largely dealt with now by KEC himself), that's not how things went down. When I first raised concerns about a MILHIST GA article being single-sourced to Kurowski, Peacemaker stated that his material was all "fine", unless I "have info that contradicts the detail": [39]. When I pointed out that Kurowski's writings were described as having "historical revisionist tendencies" and as "journalism of grey and brown zone", Peacemaker responded with: "Yes. I've read all that and taken it into account in my opinion" [40].

I was then accused of creating "an attack page" on Kurowski, "forum shopping", and being a "campaigner" / on a "crusade" [41]. Kurowski was subsequently removed from many articles but that was no thanks to MILHIST processes. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Once again I am being misrepresented. I clearly didn't claim Kurowski was dealt with by MILHIST processes. I said it was done by KEC (after some robust discussions, in which KEC prevailed). I note that nowhere does KEC explain why he has overreached beyond unreliable sources like Kurowski and removed reliable sources from hundreds of articles, or huge amounts of military information from hundreds of articles, per Cinderella157, Auntieruth55 and my evidence. It is this action which has been a "campaign" or "crusade" by KEC; it is hard to call it anything else, it is long-term civil anti-military POV pushing, and he should be admonished for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As a proposed finding of fact, this is problematic since it combines several issues on at least two different broad themes in respect to several editors. I have raised concerns at #General discussion. While there may (or not) be truth in specific elements of the allegation with respect to specific instances wrt to individual editors, this is a broad brush proposal. I note that such a broad brush is characteristic of KEC and has elements of being a misrepresentation through generalisation. Any finding of fact, correctly conducted should (IMO) disentangle these broad statements. The nature of such a broad statement also makes it problematic to respond to.

On the issue of Kurowski as an example of this proposition, the discussion occurred over a period of time. It cannot be assessed on the basis of a few diffs. KEC has linked (previously) to WP:RS. This identifies bias in sources and how to deal with it. Identifying Kurowski's writings as having "historical revisionist tendencies" and as "journalism of grey and brown zone", identifies it as a biased source that must be treated with care and caution but not as a source to be excluded per se. As I understand though, some of Kurowski's works were subsequently identified as fictional in nature. This is a different issue. But even then, there are potential issues with broad generalisations versus specific instances. I cannot speak to the specific details. But I can observe the potential error in taking this [these] propositions at face value, without considering the fuller context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikiproject infrastructure has been used inappropriately

3) Project coordinators has shown WP:OWN behaviour in terms of article content and acceptable sources.

4) Project / coordinator talk pages & coordinator notifications have been inappropriately used by involved editors, including to create an appearance of canvassing / tag teaming and to discuss possible actions against editors in good standing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• On ownership, see evidence by Assayer: "No "pro-Nazi POV-pushing", but problematic POV nonetheless" [42]; RFAR statement by MastCell [43]; K.e.coffman's evidence: "Project ownership led to walled garden" [44].
• On canvassing, tag-teaming and calls for monitoring, see K.e.coffman's evidence: "Peacemaker encouraged MILHIST coordinators to monitor my editing" [45] and "Auntieruth canvassed MILHIST coordinators" [46]; as well as RFAR statement by MastCell [47].

The above behaviours have taken place on article talk pages and MILHIST talk, coordinator talk and MILHIST Awards page. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed KECs above claims in my evidence. If anything, KEC treats GWE articles like he owns them, deciding what sources can be used, what detail is "intricate", and exhausting other editors with his failure to drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would observe that KEC has assumed ownership of GWE and presumed to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes acceptable sources - at least, to the point that they oppose any contrary interpretation of their views. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Discretionary sanctions

1) German war effort The topic area of the German participation in the Second World War <-- revised for clarity is placed under discretionary sanctions indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The sanctions would cover editor conduct in articles; article talk pages; noticeboards; and administrative pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is clear overreach. Frankly, the case has just not been made out for this serious a response in terms of editor behaviour. Compare the amount of disruption that occurred in Balkans articles before ARBMAC to the minimal actual disruption here. If it was not for a couple of editors in the recent past (who were (Dapi) or should have (LR) been dealt with at drama boards), we wouldn't even be here. This will just be used as a stick to beat those that reasonably oppose KECs editing behaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In re: Dapi89, I believe that Peacemaker is misremembering things. Dapi was not "dealt with at drama boards". After a 3-day block stemming from a 3RRN report, he received no further sanctions: block log. PM himself opposed sanctioning Dapi89 at ANI, along with Auntieruth, who both focused on my behaviour:

• Peacemaker stated: "Oppose TBan. I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's (...) streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman..." [48]. He then discussed editors "whose net benefit for the encyclopaedia is marginal" & who "lack clean hands", i.e. myself [49].

• Auntieruth: "Oppose TB Luftwaffe. This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare" [50] and "your own posts" (i.e. mine) "demonstrate incessant bickering" [51].

In the same ANI thread, Peacemaker listed many largely meaningless diffs about my behaviour [52], such as "edit warring against consensus to get his way", including on a page I've performed zero reverts on: this was my only edit to the page, followed by WP:3O request. Several MILHIST regulars, such as Pudeo [53], also opposed sanctions against Dapi. Another admin / MILHIST coord expressed their desire to see me "banned indefinitely" [54], which Peacemaker agreed with [55]. Etc. The discussion closed without consensus for any action: ANI thread.

Peacemaker, on several other occasions, suggested that I should be brought to admin attention, i.e. "...this behaviour is deplorable... I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI" [56] and "Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI" [57].

Finally, when I opened the RFAR, Peacemaker did not advocate for sanctions agains LargelyRecyclable. Instead, he focused on my "POV": "If this is about whether KEC comes here with clean hands, or has a POV to push which will be facilitated by a topic ban on LR, the answers are no and yes" [58].

That's why I have low expectations that disruptive behaviour in this topic area could be dealt with effectively at ANI. With the esprit de corps that Assayer alludes to [59], I conclude that reports would be largely ineffective when faced with MILHIST closing their ranks. That's why DS would be helpful in this area. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I will restate my position here. I have indicated that KEC needed admin (and coord) attention for precisely the reason I have detailed in my evidence and here. KEC is a long-term anti-military but civil POV pusher. The evidence Cinderella157, Auntieruth55 and I have provided back that up. On the rest, my view remains that LR could have been easily dealt with on a drama board, as could Dapi or any other editor that was misbehaving in this space (other than long-term civil POV pushers, which the community finds notoriously difficult to prosecute). Dapi could have been dealt with on the drama boards if KEC had made a better case and not been guilty of poor wikibehaviour and POV pushing himself. He did not come to the boards (or here) with clean hands. He creates most of the light and heat being generated in this area through his editing behaviour. In comparison, LR barely edits, and their problematic behaviour is cut-and-dried and of a type best dealt with on drama boards. Given KEC brought this case, I saw this ArbCom case as an opportunity to explore the long-term POV pushing that KEC has been conducting in the GWE area, which was long overdue. I felt that others that are more familiar with LR's behaviour (such as the blocking admin) would make an appropriate case regarding him and he would be sanctioned in a similar way that he would have been if he had been dealt with on a drama board. I don't have unlimited time, and prioritised detailing KECs long-term POV pushing over examining the evidence against LR and piling on. LRs behaviour did not require detailed analysis or any evidence beyond that already provided on the case page. Discretionary sanctions are a big deal, and should not be used to deal with lesser things better sorted via drama boards. DS will not help the community to deal with KECs long-term civil POV pushing, they will only weaponise it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This latest from BMK is pure misrepresentation. No-one who is a party to this case to my knowledge has opposed information about political, social and ethical/criminal aspects being inserted into GWE articles, in fact, some of us add that information as a matter of course. If this was occurring as BMK is alleging, it would have been raised in evidence. It has not. Removing information about the military aspects of a subject does not balance an article, it detracts from it and from the encyclopaedia. I mean, deleting dates and places of birth and death? That isn't exactly hagiographical, is it? Details of where someone went to school, or their family structure? These aren't MILHIST norms, they are WP norms for biographical articles. Military articles also include information about promotions, awards etc. Again, standard across all MILHIST articles, not just in GWE. Pick a FA at random and check. If KEC was just adding information about political, social ethical/criminal aspects of a subject to articles, there would be no problem. But that is not what he has done, thousands of times. He has removed military and other biographical information, to what purpose is unclear, as he will not explain it, notwithstanding BMK's attempt to explain it for him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

KEC has made no attempt I can see, save a 3RR and boomerang topic ban (both against Dapi) to deal with the issues through normal processes. Saving up complaints to gain traction here, where they might have been dealt with elsewhere appears disingenuous. KEC has a tendency to make allegations based on misrepresentation and to make vexatious allegations (see evidence). As Peacemaker observes, weaponising civil POV pushing by DS will only exacebate problems. I note how WP:CPUSH identifies responses by others to the POV pusher. DS is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This reminds me too much of the warnings I sought to imply by my now famous links and 1984 Cinderella157 (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that "anti-military POV" is a new development; I've not heard of this theory before the RFAR, when it was first mentioned by Peacemaker: [60]. Before that, I was unsure what my "agenda" supposed to be, apart from perhaps "anti-Nazi", which seemed like a positive thing.

The equating of "anti-Nazi" with "anti-military" by Peacemaker is also recent: "very hard line anti-Nazi de WP" ... is a reference to the anti-military POV demonstrated by KEC's editing behaviour, which is targeted at Nazi's and other German personnel of WWII [61]. This is bizarre, i.e. anti-Nazi = anti-military, ergo anti-Nazi = bad (?). These explanations are not helping.

Peacemaker also states: I have indicated that KEC needed admin (and coord) attention [because] KEC is a long-term anti-military but civil POV pusher [62]. Two things, 1. does this make Peacemaker a "long-term pro-military (aka anti-anti-Nazi) but uncivil POV pusher", and why is it okay to throw such labels around? And 2. if my "POV pushing" needed admin attention so badly, then PM should welcome DS, as they make it easier to deal with precisely such behaviours. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Assayer, you have made a comment in respect to me below, but your meaning is unclear. Pleas clarify what you are asserting WRT me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral on this, but if it’s going to be voted on/authorized I would phrase it as German participation in the Second World War or something similar. Nothing regarding the earlier concerns about case name, but having a more clearly worded scope is ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been absolutely no evidence presented that KEC is "anti-military". I conjecture that the reasoning behind this is something on the order of "We are the coordinators of WikiProject Military History, so if KEC opposes the way we want to write articles, he must be anti-military."

In point of fact, what the credible evidence shows is that KEC's orientation is not in any way "anti-military", and his expressed purpose is to insure that articles on some Wehrmacht officers do not extol military actions to the exclusion or eclipsing of their political and social actions in relation to the Nazi Party and the Hitler dictatorship. It's as if the article on Curtis LeMay mentioned only his military successes in World War II and ignored his statement about bombing the North Vietnamese back to the Stone Age, or the article on Edwin Walker not talking about his anti-civil rights activities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, LargelyRecycable is a party and has worked to exclude information about political, social and ethical/criminal aspects. See the evidence Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#LR engaged in harassment, e.g., how they dealt with the article on Erich Hoepner. The second aspect named by Peacemaker 67 (details) has to do with WP:WEIGHT.

What Peacemaker67's statements also make clear is that K.e.coffmann is effectively hindered to deal with issues through normal processes (Cinderella157), because they have allegedly been guilty of poor wikibehaviour and POV pushing himself. Considering how Peacemaker67 defined the workings of MILHIST below (We work together collaboratively, establish project norms, help each other develop better articles through our quality assessment systems, and look out for disruptive behaviour within the project.), this amounts to a closing of ranks even when the issue is blatant uncivility (as with Dapi89). As MilHist coord Parsecboy put it at back then at ANI I didn't come here so much to defend Dapi as to oppose K.e.coffman. --Assayer (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Cinderella157: In my comment I merely tried to make clear whom I was quoting when I was arguing that K.e.coffman's attempts at ANI were used to oppose them.--Assayer (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

DS (which we have on much less contentious topics than Germany in WWII!) would allow better resolution of disputes - AE is usually a more policy minded forum than AN/I - and usually doesn't devolve into a "who cares?" or a "ban them all" discussion (both do happen on occasion - but when there is merit).Icewhiz (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this is at all necessary. Where discretionary sanctions have previously been placed on topic areas, it's been due to much higher levels of problems than was the case here (noting, in particular, that there was little edit warring or other disruption of articles). Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

[Revised] Auntieruth55, Cinderella157, and Peacemaker67 are reminded

original heading was: "Project coordinators are reminded"

2) Project coordinators Auntieruth55, Cinderella157, and Peacemaker67 are reminded that it's not the role of the project coordinators to monitor editors' contributions, intervene in content disputes, or coordinate responses. Editor behaviour issues should be addressed with the editors directly on their Talk pages or at appropriate administrative noticeboards. Editors are also reminded that project coordinators nor project-specific essays have any special control over Wikipedia's articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no evidence for this extremely broad allegation against the project coord team in general, and it should be disregarded. Individual editors are responsible for their own actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ditto per Peacemaker. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll add this. There are reasons MILHIST is one of the most successful and productive projects on en WP. We work together collaboratively, establish project norms, help each other develop better articles through our quality assessment systems, and look out for disruptive behaviour within the project. We also reward good work. We all do that to greater or lesser extents, not just the coord team. That doesn't mean we "own" anything, but we do act as stewards on behalf of the whole of WP of the content that we have collectively reviewed and assessed as being of good quality of higher. Ownership and stewardship are different things. That means that when consensus about an article is challenged, some of us respond, usually to a GAR or FAR process that is advertised on our announcements sub-page. That is to be expected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I revised per suggestions and have added evidence.

• For monitoring, see: "Peacemaker encouraged MILHIST coordinators to monitor my editing" [63] & PM's statement: "I have indicated that KEC needed admin (and coord) attention [because] KEC is a long-term anti-military but civil POV pusher" [64].
• For intervening in content disputes, see Auntiruth: "project coordinators have become involved to head off or close edit wars and/or content disputes" [involving K.e.coffman] [65].
• For coordination, see Auntiruth: "we need to deal with this" ("we" presumably means "coordinators", as the post was addressed to the lead project coordinator) [66] & Peacemaker: "I have alerted them [the coords] to problematic editing behaviour and to an editor challenging a consensus they (and non-project coordinators) had arrived at [67].

For the last point ("issues should be addressed with the editors directly"), see Coordinator TP thread & Article TP thread, both used to discuss editor behaviour among coordinators. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors are reminded

3) Editors are reminded to utilise reliable sources, per the principles offered in WP:IRS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:HSC offers helpful suggestions on how these principles apply to sources on history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good start, but given the issues around sources, I believe that re-statement of the policy around questionable and biased sources should be included in this. I would add to this that "WP:RELIABLE sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased or objective. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources may be used with care, and WP:BIASED sources may be used and attributed in-text as necessary to identify bias". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:HSC has a number of issues. Firstly, it is directed at an advanced level student writing a treatise. I take my editing seriously and approach it in a scholarly way. However, (tongue in cheek) if I were to follow this, I would be expecting a piece of paper at the end of the day. Second, the implication is to exclude those without access to academic class libraries. Finally, it fails to identify the collaborative nature of WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This insistence on academic-level sourcing is one of the key areas at the heart of the problems in the GWE area, and KEC and Assayer are the ones who insist on it, to the exclusion of sub-academic and popular history sources that are still reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIASED also says: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking" (emphasis mine).

Given the evidence (Wikipedians: "historians" or "editors"? and MILHIST on PAGs & purpose of Wikipedia), I don't think it's a good idea to make a prescription like the one Peacemaker suggests. Even he admits that There may have been unsuitable "fanboi" sources like Kurowski used too freely by a few editors. To quote from the email I sent to historians:

Here's the virtual bookshelf of a contributor who was considered by the project to be one of its "best and most highly regarded editors": Library. This is who's who in apologist, revisionist, National Socialist, militaria and / or Landser-pulp literature, with some of these sources issued by right-wing and extremist publishers. Yet these sources are acceptable...

This library belongs to an editor who had been asked since 2013 to "Please stop pushing this Nazi publication Helden der Wehrmacht...", yet he was re-elected to the coordinator position. Sorry, I would not trust them to use such sources with care. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is at the heart of the sourcing issue. KEC doesn't like QS and BIASED, and doesn't want those sources used. That just isn't in accordance with policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Despite its somewhat troubling implications I take it as a compliment that my insistence on academic-level sourcing is one of the key areas at the heart of the problems. Who would have guessed that the problem with historical scholarship is the scholarship? I might note, however, that I found it often difficult, sometimes virtually impossible, to get access to these sub-academic and popular history sources. They are seldom held by any libraries. So who exactly is excluded from contributing? Does this imply that those who do not have access to academic class libraries simply do not have a choice but to buy and use Osprey style military histories? To me this seems to be a pretext to legitimize a certain selection of sources, all the more since those sources are being used, even when academic sources are available (and accessible either via googlebooks or WP:LIB).--Assayer (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157 is warned

4) Cinderella157 is warned to avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Of the first allegation re November 2017: Per my evidence, my post was intended as a statement of appearance and not as an allegation. I acknowledge that there was a better place to raise this. However, it would be immaterial to whether this matter was raised in this case. It has been taken as an allegation and, as I said at the time, I was prepared to provide substance to what gave cause for my observations. Notwithstanding the passage of time, I have done so in my evidence here. In good faith, I believe there to be a reasonable basis for my concerns then and my allegations made now.

I note, that having raised many of the reasons for my concerns on my talk page with Bishonen, they offered no sagely advice. They offered nothing. I also noted the discontinuity between their intent in posting to my talk page given in evidence and what they actually said at my talk page. See here.

While KEC put forward that I that I should take my concerns to ANI, I declined, mainly on the basis of WP:CPUSH and the acknowledged difficulty that WP has in dealing with such matters - yet, here we are now. My counterpoint is that KEC had an equal opportunity to do so in respect to my post. Their raising the matter here has an element of being disingenuous.

• Of the second allegation made by KEC, they now attribute this to Bishonen. I observe that Bishonen's allegation was somewhat vauge as to what was being alleged per my comments at evidence talk.

The response by Newyorkbrad was that I was: Analogizing an on-wiki dispute ... During the request phase, neither KEC nor Bishonen indicated thay took my links to be directed at KEC or as a personal attack. KEC initially posted an allegation of personal attack that simply referred to Bishonen's evidence.[68] It also includes an allegation of WP:CANVASING. KEC silently removed the allegation of canvassing four days later. They then added the specific allegation in respect to my links: Revision as of 17:42, 30 May 2018 noting that my comments at the evidence talk page per the specific nature of their allegation were made on 23 May and addressed to Bishonen.

During the case request phase, the purpose of my links was the subject of a discussion at the time, withTonyBallioni. This was linked to the request page. See evidence talk page and links from there. In that, I stated I was warning ... where [the case] might ... lead ... looking beyond the individuals involved. KEC has provided several links to other comments. As I noted on the evidence talk page, the various past links provided by KEC might imply that I have been responsible for making them. Following these will show that I was not. I note that no action was taken by KEC to clarify this. KEC implies that I made these links knowing of past references for the express purpose of making a personal attack. Even without evidence to the contrary, it is an extremely tenuous argument to make.

Given the timeline of events and the extremely tenuous nature of the proposition, this allegation appears to be disingenuous, opportunistic and manufactured. I submit that it should be treated as a vexatious allegation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, please be more specific re: "at several points". It suggests multiple and certainly more than two. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems like a good proposal to me. Cinderella157's comments at several points (including the RfArb) were out of line. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 and Peacemaker67 are admonished

5) Auntieruth55 and Peacemaker67 are admonished about aspersions and canvassing among project coordinators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I explained in my evidence, I have not attacked KECs character, which is what "casting aspersions" means. I have criticised KECs editing behaviour, something entirely different. I have also not canvassed project coordinators, I have alerted them to problematic editing behaviour and to an editor challenging a consensus they (and non-project coordinators) had arrived at. WP is supposed to be a community consensus-based platform, not one where one editor can push their POV, civilly or otherwise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In response to Assayer, I do not consider any of that (other than the "tag-teaming" claim) refers to me, or that there is any evidence that shows it does. In response to "tag-teaming", Assayer has not explained how he turns up so conveniently when KEC is struggling to make headway, even on the most obscure articles. Given my evidence of "tag-teaming" is from only a small proportion of the GWE area, I consider it is sufficient to sustain the claim more generally.[69] Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I reemphasize Peacmaker67's remarks above. I have alerted other editors, including coordinators about potentiallyproblematic editing behavior, especially when it challenges a consensus that the project has arrived at. When an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of removing sourced material from an article without using the GAR and FAR procedures, this is a problem. When an editor makes seeming unilateral changes to categories, this is a problem. It is reasonable to notify the project, especially the coordinators, of this activity. I would do it if I were not a coordinator. auntieruth (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let me describe this with a different sports metaphor: Peacemaker67 are quick to cry foul when confronted with arguments not to their liking. Thereby they act uncivilly against others. To accuse other editors of tag-teaming is of course both an ad hominem argument and a negative comment on their respective character. Actually I am quite happy with the diffs provided by Peacemaker67 in their evidence, because they show that I provided analysis and introduced new sources based upon my knowledge of German historiography (quite pertinent for these topics). Considering Wikipedia:Tag team#Tag team characteristics, however, the continual ignoring of points (practised exhaustively by Auntieruth55), the refusal to consider new sourced perspectives, the pushing of a certain point of view, and so forth, that struck me as a reasonably fair description of how certain editors try to preserve, among other things, their preferred versions of articles on the top-scorers, fastest-scoring aces, and industrial target specialists of the Luftwaffe. --Assayer (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the refusal to consider new sourced perspectives is exactly how I would describe responses like: As usual, you are setting far too high a bar for sources. You are clearly in the minority.[70] Instead of commenting on content it seems more important to maintain the majority. This approach effectively turns WP:CONS into a poll, which it is not meant to be. If the concern is that K.e.coffman solicits appearances/constributions by me and vice versa, that is called canvassing, not tag-teaming. It does not take secret machinations, however, to keep oneself informed about the hot spots of the MilHist project. You may take notice of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force/Article alerts, for example. The main distress seems to be that there could be support of K.e.coffmann's utterly fringe view (PM67) in the first place, which of course thwarts attempts to marginalize those perspectives.--Assayer (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Bishonen

Proposed principles

Unreliable sources in Featured articles and Good articles

1) Featured articles and Good articles are not immune to sourcing problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The guidelines are fairly clear editing and improving GA/FA, as stated in evidence. At face value, AuntieRuth is incorrect. However, it is also quite clear that edits to FA should be made with care and, though not stated, tact. One would have to look closely to see if KEC has acted with care or something more akin to a bull in a china shop? I would suspect the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm proposing this principle because of comments by AuntieRuth55 such as this: "I do think the German aces articles that have achieved FA should be left alone." Bishonen | talk 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC).

Proposed findings of fact

AuntieRuth55 has defended the use of unreliable sources

1) AuntieRuth55 has, specifically in her role as coordinator, defended the use of unreliable sources. See [71], [72] (scroll down), [73], this part of MastCell's evidence, and this part of KEC's evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It was identified as an unreliable source by KEC. For example, the edit he used to show my indifference to reliability is also an indication of my willingness to look at individual publications on their own merit and to match the publication citation to the material cited. Schiffer may be an independent family-owned firm, but it has an array of books. Does a small publisher automatically mean we cannot consider any of the works? Does the fact that the source has bias (which it does) mean that the source is inaccurate? It is unreliable for the overall interpretation of events of the war, possibly, but for the facts it cites? If I remember correctly, it was used to document birth date, location, death date, family details. These are not typically material that is subject to fictionalizing. All sources have bias. This doesn't make them unreliable. It just makes them biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntieruth55 (talk • contribs)

Re Auntieruth: it [Gunther Just] was used to document birth date, location, death date, family details. These are not typically material that is subject to fictionalizing..., that's incorrect. Here's the version of the article reverted to by Auntieruth, re-adding ~30 000 characters [74]. It contains 30+ citations to Just, many about Rudel's wartime exploits, including heroically surrendering to the Western Allies. So my point about Auntieruth's judgement on what constitutes a reliable source sorely lacking stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AuntieRuth55 has stated on the main case page that "Like Peacemaker, I'm commenting here as a long-term Milhist coord,"[75] and also that "project coordinators have become involved in some of the edit conflicts ... as calm voices trying to resolve questions of content and sources, of trying to develop consensus on how questions of sourcing and editing should be addressed.[76] I do not believe she has lived up to this rose-tinted view of the coordinator role, especially where sourcing is concerned. For examples, compare MastCell's comment here. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC).

KEC has practiced civil NPOV-pushing

2) During this case, KEC has repeatedly been accused of "civil POV-pushing" by opponents, but could more appropriately be said to practice civil NPOV-pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not in the service of NPOV. I'll restate what I've said elsewhere. If he was adding material about political, social and ethical/criminal aspects of a subject that were not covered, that would be supporting NPOV. But what he has been doing is deleting military information, which undermines NPOV. How on earth does deleting basic biographical information like date and place of birth and death support NPOV? This makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You've said half a dozen times that I deleted dates of birth and death. Your evidence does not show this, and I don't recall having done that. Are you sure about this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A number of people have accused KEC of "civil POV-pushing" on these pages, sometimes in connection with criticizing what they see as KEC's and Assayer's misguided sourcing standards, and/or in connection with criticizing KEC's removal of "intricate detail" and militaria. In my opinion, KEC has actually practiced what might be called "civil NPOV-pushing". This is a neologism I use to refer to a marriage of the policies WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Compare Drmies's evidence here. I retain the "pushing" part of "civil POV-pushing" in my neologism, in reference to the fact that KEC doesn't give up easily. As long as it's employed in the service of NPOV, that's not a bad trait. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC).

Your neologism is a useful one, and, in my opinion, correctly describes KEC's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

AuntieRuth55 is admonished

1) AuntieRuth55 is admonished for defending the use of unreliable sources, and is urged to be more open to other users' identification of sourcing problems in articles, including in Featured and Good articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure I have defended the use of unreliable sources. I have defended the neutral use of biased sources. All sources have bias. Some sources may be unreliable about some specific facts/events/ideas/statements, etc., but generally reliable about others. Everything, including material in sources deemed "reliable" should be verified. auntieruth (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comment here [77], Workshop section "Editors are reminded". There are two issues with Auntieruth's defending the neutral use of biased sources: 1. sources need to be deemed reliable in the first place; 2. Auntieruth's judgement on what constitutes a reliable source has been shown to be lacking. Example from Evidence section "Auntieruth misinterpreted WP:IRS" (edited):

This response exemplifies AR’s approach: she conflates Dictionary of National Biography with Günter Just, collaborator of the article’s subject, and insists that sources are "reliable", without offering any proof [78], while ignoring a follow-up: thread.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis by Drmies

Moved from a late submission at the evidence page. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Better late than never: Peacemaker again, trying to cast aspersions on Coffman: "the anti-military POV demonstrated by KEC's editing behaviour, which is targeted at Nazi's and other German personnel of WWII". I really don't know that Coffman has an "anti-military POV", but I'm reminded of the kinds of things they used to ask of conscientious objectors--"so you wouldn't use a gun if someone tried to rape your mother". And how oddly contradictory: if Coffman had an "anti-military POV", it would ONLY be directed toward Nazis, but not toward, for instance, the US, for the last five decades the world's most dominant military force? Finally, Peacemaker seems to argue that the anti-military POV is proven by Coffman's discrediting "military" sources--well, it is clear that Coffman has repeatedly shown a dedication to using academic, peer-reviewed secondary sources, which is what our encyclopedia requires. If Peacemaker's attitude toward sources is emblematic of how MILHIST works, then maybe it's time for a wholesale GAR and FAR--a review of all they've done. I know not all of MILHIST's works is somehow tainted, but I am really bothered, and saddened, by the attitudes towards sourcing and objectivity that I see here. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Ha, I thought Peacemaker's comments were problematic, but Cinderella kicks it up a few notches with accusations like this. ArbCom, I hope you take a broom to the whole project. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have to say, given this is my first foray into ArbCom as a party, I never thought I would see such one-sided commentary from someone who has apparently been reading Arbitration cases for quite a long time, and one would assume would take a neutral position on matters before it and properly read and weigh evidence before making comments. BMK is clearly biased in favour of KEC, and will not admit to any wrongdoing on his part even though it is obvious from the evidence that KECs actions are a major cause of the disputation in the GWE area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• As a general observation of KEC's workshop contribution, they they have in cases, "lumped" togeather several propositions in respect to several parties (or others), where not all propositions pertain to all parties, nor do their comments pertain necessarily to all propositions or parties. This makes it somewhat difficult to disentangle what belongs where, where to respond to what and who said which about what. If reading this, you are confused, that is my point. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• As the close is fast approaching I will make some broad comments, noting that these are evidence based. There is much misrepresentation in KEC evidence. Some of this is directed at LR. And I can provide diffs accordingly. The evidence against LR is largely built on a premise that they have acted in bad faith. In this respect, it then becomes self-fulfilling. If it was Panzer Battles that bought their return to WP, then I see marked improvements in the article in consequence. Rommel and Rommel myth have a reasonably logical progression. Much of the allegations being made against LR can be seen in KEC's conduct too, so this is something of WP:POT.

• On the issue of LR's personal attack during evidence, I would point to Bishonen's evidence where they use "mansplaining" - a pejorative sexist term. "Don't thank me" has elements of baiting. Bishonen's comments to me were very condescending and uncivil, even possibly rising to the threshold of a personal attack. While this does not excuse a tit-for-tat response, it does raise issue with how this was dealt with and how it should be viewed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• In respect to KEC and Hawkeye, I see elements of hounding by KEC and elements of a vendetta. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is the first time in 9(?) years that I'ave been a party of an arbitration case and find the whole thing completely confusing. auntieruth (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've been reading arbitration cases for quite a long time, and I feel compelled to say that I have never seen proposed "findings" that are as baldly biased as those presented here by Pudeo, Peacemaker67, Auntieruth55, and Cinderella157. Usually, parties to the case realize that the best way to have their proposed findings influence the drafting arbitrators is frame them as neutrally as possible, but these editors have not done that, they have instead blatantly offered biased and unsupported "findings" which I doubt very much will be of any use to the arbs. In my opinion, that's a reflection of their entrenched position on this issue. Unfortunately, ArbCom has no authority to restructure or disband WikiProjects, but it does seem as if the leadership of WikiProject Military History is in dire need of a clean sweep. Still, the drafting arbitrators should consider re-iterating previous ArbCom findings that WikiProjects do not have either de facto or de jure authority over the articles they claim in their purview, and issue a warning to the coordinators of WikiProject Military History not to overstep their bounds. Meatpuppetry and group editing are disruptive even when they are carried out by WikiProject coordinators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: There is a distinct difference between proposed findings, which are supposed to be suggested guidelines for the drafting arbitrators, and therefore should be grounded in Wikipedia policy and norms and as neutrally formulated as possible, and commentary about those proposed findings, which are essentially opinions concerning them. I don't know why you would expect my opinions not to reflect my personal views about the case and the circumstances surrounding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For examples of how proposed findings should be presented, see those of TonyBallioni and Bishonen and the majority of those of KEC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)