Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision

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)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by Alex Shih

• We are still deliberating on the details of the proposed decision. With apologies, I'd like to ask 10 days extension, and I thank all parties involved for your patience. The extension will be enacted shortly. Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: could you please provide an update on the timing here? I appreciate that we're now well into the northern hemisphere vacation season, so the people involved in drafting the proposed decision may have other demands on their time. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D My apologies for the silence and the tardiness in general. The proposed decision draft is basically done, but just awaiting for more experienced drafters to go over them, which is expected to happen sometime tomorrow. I am uncertain how much extension we will be asking, so I will ask that now. Alex Shih (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• As we are running way past the deadline, I have posted the proposed decision that we have so far for public view. As this is only a draft of the proposal, many of the wordings are subject to be rephrased. As usual, comments and criticisms are more than welcomed. Alex Shih (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to say I was planning to post it yesterday but real life intervened - good things fortunately. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

Imposing discretionary sanctions on "Topics related to the German participation in the Second World War, broadly interpreted" basically amounts to imposing discretionary sanctions on most of Wikipedia's coverage of World War II (noting that Germany was the main Axis country, and was also active in the Pacific Theatre at various points). This seems disproportionate to the relatively modest nature of both the proposed findings and the other proposed sanctions. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's normal to present a range of options even if some are unlikely to pass. You've made a good point. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for any general sanctions here. The issues and conduct are entirely within the scope of admins to handle using existing policies and guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, as the issues considered in this case are at the very low end of seriousness in terms of matters considered by ArbCom, I think it's appropriate that the Committee is taking a light touch with findings and sanctions. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This is probably much too late, but I think that the "General finding" is not accurate, and rather one sided. Multiple editors, including myself, noted in evidence that the way in which K.e.coffman raised their concerns was sub-optimal at times (for instance, I noted that by seeking to change lots of articles on German pilots simultaneously K.e.coffman needlessly got good editors offside). K.e.coffman was also at fault here given that this was an important element of causing the "significant series of content disputes" noted in the FoF: they should have taken this to central discussions much sooner, and this would have contributed to a more collegial atmosphere. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Serial Number 54129

Indeed, it is far too broad—effectively a ten-year period of global history, as suggested—but can it be narrowed at all? specifically, perhaps to focus on the "Clean hands" element of the dispute which seems not only to have been the original locus but also the primary theatre of engagement...as it were.

Am I right in thinking that Poland/Eastern Europe is currently being investigated by Arbcom elsewhere, for similar (although not identical) reasons? (The Holocaust, I think) The areas do dovetail; how slender would be the odds of creating a tailor-made sanction which covers both? —per NOTBURO. Although perhaps being so specific would make it too easy to game. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• This: "The conduct we're discussing seems out of character"...I have to disagree, emphatically.
  Indeed, it is impossible for this to be an anomaly when, I now find, I mentioned it three months ago, in which I note that Bishonen had raised previous concerns (already linked below). Now, with the best will in the world, one's behaviour can hardly be described as "out of character" when the same qualities are demonstrated months apart. And it is worth noting that the original incident to which I referred to—and which led me to draw the comprehensive conclusion that I did—on my talk, occurred in the previous November. So; we have established that it is clearly not out of character, and if not a go-to, default position, then certainly one which occurs far too regularly.
  I’m sure my record speaks for itself and illustrates that I can be both robust in my approach and a respecter of robustness in others. But however thick-skinned I may be, Cinderella157 still managed single-handedly to drive me away from MILHIST for a lengthy period. Battlegrounding, yeah, sure; but other characteristics are the walls-of-text, the ALLCAPSBLUE alphabet soups, the passive-aggression and the hand-waving towards making a point without necessarily doing so. Frankly it became more trouble than it was worth.
  Indeed, WP:BATTLEGROUND would appear to be somewhat of a defining characteristic. It has continued most recently at Talk:Erwin Rommel (ping Beyond My Ken), and, rather blatantly, here. So although I respect the good-faith suggestion that it is merely the stress of an arbcom case, I would suggest that when it's clearly a frequent reaction—not just at a noticeboard—it needs to be addressed. And particularly when one is in a position of responsibility, one is the public face of the project, especially to new members.
  Che fare? Regarding the generality, I am (very) sympathetic to those who call for discretionary sanctions. It would be a logical response to wield the tools that only the committee can wield. But I agree that the parameters would have to be more clearly—and narrowly—defined (focussing on the axis powers / eastern front / ranks and insignias; that kind of thing or a cocktail of the lot!) More specifically, in considering the behavioural pattern(s) of Cinderella157, Bishonen's suggestion(s) below are excellent—even something as simple as a word-limit restriction would probably encourage them to give more thought to their responses, and thus responses of greater nuance then we have traditionally seen, and that we have seen here so recently. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Belatedly, of course, I should probabaly ping, I guess: @Euryalus, Newyorkbrad, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Opabinia regalis, and Worm That Turned: Apologies to any who didn't want a ping and likewise to any I'd forgotten who would. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Gamiel: I think Shih meant, "unfortunately for your [LR's] argument", didn't they, rather than, "unfortunately G. hasn't been desysopped", which would be rather in your face :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:, ballsed up ping, sorry —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Drmies

Oh I am so tempted to drop my own votes in there, if just for the lulz! Can we have a section for former arbs? You guys are lucky to have such a juicy case, with tanks and all. Seriously, good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if you miss it that much, run again! -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Euryalus, I'm going to ask a clerk to remove these comments since we don't do threaded discussions (right?), and will have to ask you to recuse yourself from any future case involving me. BTW hey, the best way to stave that off is to run again... Drmies (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Beyond My Ken

Acknowledging that this case is a difficult one for the Committee, sitting as it does right on the razor edge of the behavior/content divide, and appreciating that the PD was posted perhaps earlier in the drafting process than would normally be the case, I do want to express my hope that the decision which ultimately comes out of this is not a toothless one, and actually takes concrete steps to solve the problem(s) in this subject area. I urge each individual arbitrator to keep this firmly in mind when they consider their votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Auntieruth55 reminded:"

Would the replacement of "special role" with "formal authority" or "special authority" be helpful in any way?

In general, I am concerned with the role of WikiProjects in attempting to control how articles they claim purview over are edited. I believe ArbCom has already ruled that although Projects can promulgate editing guidelines, they have no special authority to force editors to follow them. I think that a reminder to the MilHist coordinators involved in this case about the limitations of their authority would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it will make any difference. Like Euryalus indicates, project coordinators do have informal roles in mediating disputes as part of the internal process of the project. Auntieruth55 stepped over the line by trying to enforce some sort of authority through mass pinging project coordinators across multiple pages. But I agree that it doesn't rise to the level of warranting official ArbCom reminder. Alex Shih (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Responding to your first paragraph above, I appreciate the sentiment that our decision in this case should take concrete steps to solve issues—but how? My current reading of the case pages is that, with at most a couple of exceptions, the evidence does not support editor-specific remedies against more than one or two editors. None of the workshop proposals provide a clear path forward either. I have ideas for guidance for the editors in this area, but I recognize that well-meaning guidance is not the same as concrete steps forward. We can't write the articles. Not to throw your well-intentioned words back at you, but if you have concrete examples in mind "concrete steps" I'd be glad to hear them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't have any specific suggestions for "concrete steps", my concern is that the case would end up with a "we suggest that the community examine the use of sources in controversial subjects" as its primary result, which is a pretty lame end for an arbitration case. But, of course, if the evidence isn't there, it isn't there, and I can't pretend to have examined all the evidence with the care that I'm sure the arbitrators did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Question for the committee and clerks - The Workshop phase of this case closed on 20 June, almost a month ago, but it appears to me that many of the comments below are not about the posted proposed decision, and are instead making suggestions that would have been relevant to post during the workshop phase, and even posting evidence, despite the fact that the evidence phase closed on 13 June. I suggest that the committee direct the clerks to go through the comments and collapse any that are not proper to this phase of the case, or that the clerks take it upon themselves to do so, if that is within their usual purview. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll come out from behind the curtain to say that I agree wholeheartedly with everything that MastCell and Bishonen said in their comments below. I would have said so earlier about MastCell's comment, but, frankly, I was convinced that the committee was going to take the easy way out, and it didn't seems as if my comment was likely to make any difference, but now, with Bishonen commenting, I'm hoping there's a chance that something useful can come out of this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Question concerning Proposed Remedy #6: "All editors reminded" The second sentence says Longterm disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level. This is perfectly reasonable and logical, and I agree with it completely, but I don't think I've ever seen it expressed formally in a policy or behavioral guideline. Can I ask if the language was lifted from somewhere in particular, or if it's a (new) description of (what should be) general Wikipedia behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: When I was writing the sentence I was thinking along the lines of a generalised statement that reflects Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels_of_consensus and the nature of this case. The language itself was not really lifted from anywhere. Alex Shih (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Alex: Thank you very much. The language is useful, I think, and might profitably be incorporated elsewhere .Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• @L235, GoldenRing, and Kostas20142: Would the clerks kindly update the vote counts on a more regular basis? They seem rather out of date. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• P.S. I could, of course, just update them myself (I have been known to count up to 11 occasionally, although only if I have my shoes and socks off), but the instructions on the page seem pretty darn strict about non-arbs and non-clerks not editing the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Two questions for the committee:
  • The site ban of LargelyRecyclable appears to be pretty locked in. If it stays as part of the eventual decision, will the committee reveal what LR's original identity was, since that identity should be indef blocked as well?
  • About that "eventual" decision - the closing of this case has dragged out for considerably longer that the usual arbitration case, and I'm wondering if anything can be done to move it along towards closure. (If this was an American court, and you were the jury, and I was the judge, I'd be giving you a "dynamite charge" about now, to break up the blockage and get things going again.)
    It appears that the sticking point is the nature of the sanction(s) against Cinderella157, with four different options being considered. If time were to stop right now, #3 (admonishment) would pass fail with 6 votes, none of them conditional; and #3A (IBan) would also pass with 6 votes, although 2 of them are conditional on other remedies not passing. So, #3A can't ultimately be decided until #3B (WWII TB, 5 votes, 3 conditional) and #3C (German history TB, 4 votes, none conditional) are decided. If my count is correct, 3 arbs haven't voted on #3B, and 6 haven't voted on #3C.
    I know that you are all volunteers -- as are we all -- and no one wants any snap decisions, but there's been plenty of time to contemplate the various issues here. Can I encourage the arbs who have yet to vote on these two proposed remedies to make up their minds?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

Regarding the Proposed FoF – Conduct of Cinderella157: perhaps it would be better to expand it to read "...and casted aspersions on their editing without providing sufficient evidence, if that is what is intended. We cast aspersions (disparage, criticise, question their abilities etc) on people's editing all the time at the drama boards, but we are expected to provide sufficient evidence for what we are saying. I note that I'm not making a judgement about whether Cinderella157 provided enough evidence, just that the wording of this Proposed FoF is insufficiently precise, and makes it appear that it is never ok to cast aspersions on someone's editing, when it clearly is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I think that's a fair point, and I will revise accordingly. I will make a separate comment about some general points. Alex Shih (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Proposed FoF – Conduct of K.e.coffman: I don't want to give the impression that I am trying to re-litigate here, but I consider this FoF is an inaccurate summation of the evidence regarding K.e.coffman's editing behaviour. I provided considerable evidence that K.e.coffman has deleted a great deal of non-contentious material without adequate explanation. In many cases, such as dates and places of birth and death etc, this material was based on reliable sources that he himself removed from the articles. No evidence was provided by anyone that these sources were questionable or biased, or that this information was based primarily on biased or questionable sources, and no explanation was provided as to why it was necessary to remove dates and places of birth and death (and other uncontentious material) from so many articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, while it is true that you have provided diffs for K.e.coffman removing uncontroversial information such as places of birth from articles (for instance, removing (argubly primary?) sources like Scherzer, and then deleting information based on that source). In the examples you have provided, are the places of birth otherwise unverifiable without the deleted reference? Another query: do you have an example of K.e.coffman removing years of birth? I may have missed it from the evidences, and I think K.e.coffman also made a similar clarification request at the workshop page. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih Without wanting to spend more time going through myriads of redirects, the dates of birth deletion may have be during pre-AfD or pre-mass redirect "trimming", so let's set that aside. As you note, I provided evidence about the place of birth deletion in my evidence. But firstly, I fail to see how Scherzer is a primary source. He examined the primary sources (Wehrmacht etc personal files), analysed that information, drew conclusions about who was properly awarded the KC, and published his findings, which included basic biographical information for the KC recipients such as places of birth and death. His work is therefore clearly secondary, has received positive feedback from people qualified to know its value, and no-one has provided evidence that it is either questionable or biased. So that aspect of the FoF is just wrong regarding K.e.coffman's deletions of Scherzer at the very least. As far as deletion of information is concerned, the places of birth may very well be verifiable without Scherzer in many cases, because, as I mentioned in my evidence, there are entries in German state dictionaries of biography entries for many senior German military personnel of WWII, and where they were members of the Reichstag, in the biographical entries available for them. Then there are no doubt German language newspaper obituaries that would also verify such uncontroversial information. In fact, having the place of birth/death in the article actually gives an editor a clue as to which state dictionary to check for further information. In this way, these deletions undermined the building of the encyclopaedia. And for what possible purpose did K.e.coffman delete this information? This has never been explained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker, assuming for the moment that your view of his edits on dates of birth are correct, how substantial a dereliction do you think it to be? DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day DGG. Given his deletions (not of dates of birth, which I have acknowledged I haven't provided evidence of, but other uncontroversial and unexceptional material such as places of birth and death, details of early life, WWI service etc) as well as a reliable secondary source that supported some of these details are completely unexplained, that no rationale has been provided for removing them besides misleading and inaccurate canned edit summaries, that these details would have materially assisted other editors to find sources to expand many articles, and the sheer number of articles affected, I consider it a pretty serious undermining of the encyclopaedia in the GWE area, as it makes articles less comprehensive, and makes it harder to make them comprehensive, when comprehensiveness is our aim. I wouldn't have committed so much time to documenting it or suggested action against K.e.coffman in the workshop if I didn't. I'm 100% behind finding better sources for controversial or exceptional material that is unsourced or poorly sourced (or deleting it if reliable sources cannot be found), but this has just been deletion for deletion's sake, so far as I can see. K.e.coffman's complete failure to explain what the hell he thought he was doing by deleting all this information just makes it worse. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to put it as directly as I can: the error of unnecessarily removing a few non-essential sources is very minor compared to the essential work of calling attention to and removing an underlying bias from many articles. This is to some extent a content judgment, and therefore not part of the formal decision; but it is also a value judgment that in the overall balance his activities in the field are highly praiseworthy and in the best spirit of NPOV, which I think is reflected in the decision. . It is also an expression of my underlying feeling, made much stronger as the case and the comments have developed, that the motives of those who over-emphasise his errors might demonstrate their conscious or unconscious bias--this is a matter of personal judgment and opinion, and therefore just my individual comment. It does not form a part of the reasoning behind the actual decision. I'm not going to argue further with those who might disagree--I've said all that I need to. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you've been pretty clear how you see it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Alex Shih, I agree to a significant extent with the thrust of your recent comments to MastCell. The tagging campaign was a significant cause of friction with other Milhist editors, especially when WP:SOLDIER makes it clear that officers of the rank of Generalmajor and above are presumed to be notable, and K.e.coffman had made no effort to challenge that aspect of the guideline before he tagged many articles for notability. Once again, he was being overzealous. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day KrakatoaKatie. I am wondering whether you would consider tightening the proposed TBAN for Cinderella157 to the scope of the GWE (broadly construed)? The behaviour which is supposed to be addressed by this TBAN is all GWE-related, so it seems excessive to propose a TBAN with a wider scope than this case. If the current remedy was successful, it would stop Cinderella157 from editing (and reviewing articles) on aspects of WWII that have nothing to do with Germany, for example virtually the entire South East Asian and Pacific theatres. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd accept that. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That would make far more sense. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The modified proposal seems to have an appropriate scope for this case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the "re-litigation and bludgeoning" that Cinderella157 is being accused of is in danger of being repeated here by K.e.coffman with his recent extensive post. I don't think this is the appropriate point in the case to be re-litigating and tabling new evidence, as that time has passed. However, if Arbs would like a response from me regarding aspects of K.e.coffman's most recent post that refer to me, please let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Newyorkbrad. In respect to the General finding you've just added, I don't think it is accurate to state that there was a "downplaying the German military's participation in the overall program of the Nazi regime", because I don't believe there has been evidence provided that any editor has actually been doing that. There was systemic bias towards purely military aspects (largely due to the specialist nature and possibly the availability of sources), and a commensurate lack of political/social/ethical context, but they are covered separately in the finding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

G'day Newyorkbrad. Per your invitation in the notes, can I suggest that the first bit of this finding be amended to read "K.e.coffman raised a series of good-faith concerns that articles about the German military and military leadership during World War II focussed on the strictly military and technical aspects, such as the individuals' military records, while paying insufficient attention to the German military's participation in the overall program of the Nazi regime and without placing the individuals' roles into their duly weighted historical contexts."? This would address my concerns expressed immediately above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

G'day KrakatoaKatie. Re your: Cinderella157's and Auntieruth55's conduct as Military History WikiProject coordinators FoF, I see only one instance in those diffs where there was any allusion to the role of coordinators, and that is Auntieruth's post on AustralianRupert's talkpage, which really was her trying to gain the attention of the lead coord about what she clearly saw was a behaviour issue. As concluded elsewhere, that behaviour is not unreasonable. In none of the other three diffs is there any implication that their comments deserve any more weight that that of a member of Milhist, or that they were drawing on the non-existent "authority" of being a coord. The behaviour in the diffs is the responsibility of the individual editors, and I detect no "call from authority" in them. I therefore consider that this FoF lacks sufficient evidence to support it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this is probably of tangential interest to ArbCom, but I just wanted to highlight that, in light of the issues raised in this case about the use of high-quality reliable sources in the GWE area, WikiProject Military history has just strongly endorsed the introduction of a source review to our A-Class process. This was done with the intent of bringing our A-Class process closer to the FAC process in this important area, and we consider it will provide additional assurance that sources have been closely examined by Milhist processes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, and Doug Weller: I dispute K.e.coffman's view here. There is a clear delineation between political/social aspects of a biography and the purely "military" aspects of places, tactics, battles and casualties, whether they were military or civilian. This is at the heart of the issues in this case. The political and social views of individual participants in WWII are separate from the "military" aspects, and it shouldn't be accepted that they all fall within the "military" aspects. For example, the support of an individual for the Nazi Party is not a "military" aspect of a biography, it is of a political nature, not a military one, however repellent. I agree that the ethical aspects of military service should be included in the "military" aspects, however, as they go to the "rules of war". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, and Doug Weller: G'day all, not knowing how these processes work, I don't know what can be done to move things along a bit, but we have Milhist coordinator elections in September, and I think that the outcomes here might have an impact on editor's decisions on who they will support. Is there any chance we'll get to case closed by the end of the month? Otherwise we're probably going to have to go out to the membership with incomplete information. I know our processes can't drive yours, but things seem to be reaching finality? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie and Doug Weller: I have a similar question to Tony about the proposed TBAN. Perhaps I'm parsing this too finely, but whatever the final wording on Cinderella157, I think he should be able to edit within project pages of WikiProject Military history as long as the page or thread in question doesn't relate to the history of Germany 1932–1945 (broadly construed). So, he should be able to participate in unrelated discussions on WT:MILHIST and WT:MHCOORD, but not edit WP:GERMIL for example. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, that seems like a content issue to me, therefore I don't see how it would be a test case for what has transpired here, where the focus is necessarily on conduct. The nose thing is a bit weird though. If you haven't already, perhaps raise your concerns with the editor in question on his talk page in the first instance? The forum for discussion of Milhist content guidelines is WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cinderella157

Purpose of Wikipedia

At:in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors

Suggest:in a collegiate and collaborative atmosphere with mutual respect among contributors

Collaboration particularly, is consistent with the notion of consensus building. I would even go as far as to say that this is for "The constrictive improvement of the project", by adding to and improving the quality of content. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fair suggestion. I am not fond of the term "camaraderie", as it sounds rather archaic to me, but then English technically isn't my first language. Alex Shih (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Principle - neutral point of view and reliable sources

I very much concur with the observation by DGG regarding the use of the terms, historiography and historiographies. I would further identify that all sources are possessed of a degree of bias and that academic sources can, by virtue of their nature, be particularly biased per Reliable sources are never neutral.

MilHist broadly deals with events and biographies. Academic treatises are much more esoteric in nature. While they may touch on the subject of a Milhist article, such coverage is likely very narrow in scope. Broad coverage of an article subject is only likely to be sourced from the "popular" press. This is a matter not confined to MilHist but to history and biographies more generally as well as many other subject areas covered by WP.

The locus of dispute identifies weight as an issue, thereby leading to the principle of NPOV. The guidelines and policy regarding weight and NPOV both go to opinion derived from sources and biased opinion. I do not believe that the locus if dispute pivots on weight in this sense, but rather, the differentiation between fact (particularly if it is non-controversial) and opinion in biased sources (noting that all articles sources have at least some degree of bias) and how these are dealt with in an article.

Text at these two proposed principles captures and addresses some of these issues. I am suggesting that Arbs may wish to further refine these though. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions

I note the subject case and that it is directly relevant to this case and actions by KEC removing material from infoboxes. If I have understood this decision correctly, it refers to removal of verifiable material (as opposed to verified material). In respect to KEC, this particularly relates to removal of material such as place of birth - as identified by Peacemaker67. KEC has made edits to infoboxes since this decision. I believe it likely that these edits may be subject to the DS imposed by that decision. Given the relationship between these cases, it may be appropriate to make this earlier decision explicit in the closing of this case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I do not believe the purpose of the decision from the Infobox case is exactly relevant here; the idea is to regulate edits that are purely for the purpose of Infobox; K.e.coffman made infobox edits in the evidence provided, but the purpose of these edits appears to me to be part of the overall larger content edit. If another editor shares the similar concern however, I think the point will be addressed. Alex Shih (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Not at this stage. Maybe if it had been raised a few weeks ago to give others a chance to discuss it and K.e.coffman a chance to reply, but it would be a new Fof, etc and that door is shut. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I only just became aware of this other case myself. As I understand the decision there, DS do not just apply to adding or deleting an infobox but to content therein. Deleting such content is directly relevant to this case. I acknowledge that "fair warning" to KEC in particular has not been made wrt subsequent edits since the decision. However, I believe that the prior case does go directly to KEC's conduct and it is appropriate to make the implications of that decision explicit in this case for future reference. I would suggest at an appropriate point, that all editors are advised of the subject decision and the DS that apply. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. It's about civility or not. Simple civil content changes don't fall under that case, however broad it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The dispute we addressed in the Civility in infobox discussions case relate to disagreements between editors on whether and when articles should contain infoboxes. (There is a longstanding disagreement among editors, especially on some arts and literature articles, as to whether the boxes are useful and informative, or reductive and distracting.) Speaking for myself I think that dispute is quite remote from the issues involved in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. (my empasis). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Conduct of KEC

In raising this, I echo Peacemaker67's sentiments, particularly that I consider this FoF is an inaccurate summation of the evidence regarding K.e.coffman's editing behaviour. I have provided considerable evidence consistent with CPUSH or otherwise less than acceptable, including the misrepresentation of sources and information more generally. Some of this evidence directly contradicts the observations made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Evidence#K.e.coffman's_conduct.

KEC's POV

I would refer to my proposed principle on civil POV pushing and FoF at the workshop phase. At the locus of dispute, Newyorkbrad, in expressing support, has commented on weight in respect to providing a broad and balanced biographical article. I would refer to Peacemaker67's comments in evidence, to effect that a biographical article should be a balanced representation of the subject (political, social and military). At my workshop proposal, Newyorkbrad questioned the POV I believed KEC was pushing. The observation by Newyorkbrad at the locus of dispute goes directly to the POV I allege KEC is pushing and their question to this effect at my workshop proposal. KEC's POV is to diminish (and minimalise) a balanced representation of a subject. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Material removed is either non-verifiable or based primarily on biased or questionable sources

As identified at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop, only about 25% of their edits that reduce article size (or only nominally increase it) have edit summaries that refer to "sources" or various permutations of "RS". The only significant reference I am seeing to primary sources are mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht as an award. In this case, the Wehrmachtbericht is a suitable source for such a mention having occurred. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Is editing within policies and guidelines

WP:5P5 advises that the principle and spirit matter more than the literal words. This is reinforced at WP:BURO, WP:GAME and WP:LAWYERING. One can edit within policies and guidelines but abuse the principles they represent. Evidence has been presented where they have misrepresented certain guidelines consistently. They have used WP:V and WP:QS etc as "justification" to remove significant amounts of material. The very basis for this case, the Signpost article points to them being here to right a great wrong. Simply looking at their editing history and the amount of material removed from articles indicates that they are acting deconstructively rather than constructively. There is evidence that they have misrepresented sources and controlled or manipulated information in furtherance and justification of their "agenda".

Rather than saying that they have acted within policy and guidelines, the question is whether they have acted within the spirit and principles that these represent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Is KEC truely civil?

Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil.

While KEC often closes an initial talk post with Please let me know if there are any concerns. They commonly respond to any concerns though, with a wall of text that clearly leaves an impression that raising any concern is unwelcome.[1]. This behaviour is only superficially civil?

KEC made a substantial post at MilHist with the apparent intent of ridiculing a named editor.[2] There is then the matter of their user page.

KEC appears to have hounded Hawkeye7. In their evidence, KEC has labeled a number of editors (myself included) as [Nazi] apologists. Their allegations in my case, were a gross misrepresentation. I find such an allegation extremely distasteful (tantamount to calling me a Nazi) and a personal attack - particularly as it was accompanied by misrepresentation. KEC (and Bishonen) has made an allegation that my links in the case request were a personal attack against them, even though I had made it clear, well before any suggestion of the allegation, that I was not drawing a comparison to KEC and I was looking beyond the individuals involved. Such an accusation, without any reasonable substance, appears vexatious, rising to the level of a personal attack.

I would submit that there is a body of evidence that contradicts that cited at the proposed FoF. KEC's editing has not always been civil. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

KEC rarely edit wars?

While I was not specifically looking for examples of edit warring in the course of assembling my evidence, it was quite easy to identify examples.[3][4][5][6]. Two of these examples occurred in early April of this year. These examples have all been referred to in evidence and/or otherwise in the course of the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

KEC uses noticeboards

I have not investigated the use of notice boards by KEC in detail but did review this instance at NPOV in respect to the Wehrmachtbericht. NPOVN advises that posters to the board should do so neutrally and with sufficient context. Furthermore, it notes that a failure to do so would constitute forum shopping. My observation in this instance was that KEC failed to provide appropriate context.

Editing against local consensus

Edits and talk posts at World War II reenactment are a recent example to the contrary. A request to move was initiated by KEC and closed in early November 2017. In consequence of comments made their (and which I have perceived to represent a local consensus), material relating to Waffen-SS reenactment was removed on the basis of weight. KEC reinstated the material in early April.

KEC initially argued that the move discussion was immaterial to the subject material. I note with some irony their comment: The way to deal with the weight concerns is to add content, not remove the content one may disagree with; pls see WP:NOTCENSORED. This is quite contrary to how KEC has acted to delete material.

KEC continued to argue the matter at World War II reenactment#Material in question. This belies the assertion that KEC does not edit against local consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Lessons already learned?

Changes of the same or similar nature done en masse are at risk of being disruptive. See here KEC has made multiple changes en masse with resultant disruption - even acknowledged by Nick-D. Fighter aces is just one example of many. I believe it continued until at least September[7] (if not later). It was preceded by similar actions for Knights Cross winners on a much larger scale and greater disruption. They did not learn the appropriate lessons alluded to by Nick-D and apply these to fighter aces?

At WP:BOLD, it advises caution in editing FA and GA articles. It also indicates potential consequences of not heeding the advice. KEC has not heeded that advice, with predictable consequences and has "cried foul" here, rather than acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

The elapse of time is not a positive indication that KEC has learned any lessons of the type alluded to by Nick-D. On the otherhand, there have been multiple instances where they might have learned such lessons but they have repeatedly approached such matters in much the same way - a positive indicator that such lessons have not and are unlikely to be learned. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Problematic WWII content

I have not considered the examples in the same detail as Nic-D. However, by-and-large, I do not dispute the problematic nature of these. If all of KEC's edits addressed such problems, this case would be entirely different. I submit that much of the problematic content identified at their user page could be resolved by appropriately tweaking the problematic text. Such text though, represents only a small proportion of that edited by KEC and does not justify the huge amount of material they have deleted. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OWN

KEC appears to be exhibiting ownership behaviour WRT GWE articles.[8] In respect to this, I might submit a further example not already in evidence if requested. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

All of the points of evidence refereed to above (save the link to a fighter ace article) have been given in evidence or otherwise raised in the course of this case. They go directly to the majority of the statements made in the FoF and the evidence linked from there. I submit, that there is a body of evidence that contradicts the individual statements and the FoF overall. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH

I would note that CPUSH has been a major theme in this case but observe no mention of it in the proposed decision. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Typo?

@Alex Shih, The other involved parties are saying that citing verifiable facts (such as place of birth) from biased sources in a non-neutral way is perfectly within policy.[9] (my emphasis) I would suspect this is a typo? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was my typo, with apologies. Alex Shih (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor conduct in course of the case

I note the behavioural warning for civil conduct and the making of accusations on case pages. I find it quite inconsistent that LR was censured and faces further censure for their actions at the evidence talk page WRT Bishonen but no action appears to be being taken against Bishonen for their actions. See here where I have raised the concern that Bishonen that they referred in evidence that LR was "mansplaining" - the use of such a pejorative, sexist term explicitly rises to the level of a personal attack per WP:NPA, while their subsequent "don't thank me" has elements of baiting.

There is then the allegation regarding my links which was somewhat vague but which was taken up by KEC as an allegation of a personal attack. The response by Bishonen, when asked to clarify the allegation being made by their evidence was very condescending, even rising to the level of a personal attack.

There is then the matter of MastCell's post in the request phase, where they have made allegations (including tag-teaming) based on gross misrepresentations. I have clarified this here.

In the evidence etc by Nick-D, they reraise allegations of LR being a sock puppet and violating CLEANSTART. Both matters had already been investigated. I believe the SPI investigation returned a result of "unlikely". I note an Arb comment on the proposal page referring to the result as "inconclusive". Having already been found to be unsubstantiated, the allegation they represent has the appearance of being a personal attack made in bad faith.

I appears quite inconsistent that such actions identified here (and above WRT KEC) should be tolerated and tacitly condoned particularly where action has been taken to censure LR and the circumstances giving rise to their actions have been ignored. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

FoF Editors in the topic area

This has involved some suboptimal user conduct.

A comments at KEC's conduct (proposed decision) has been made: Arbcom endorsement in these disputes implies that criticism of their edits is misguided - and that strays too close to endorsing one side over the other in an ongoing content discussion.

I have noted (but not recorded in evidence) multiple edit wars involving KEC. Evidence by Nick-D has noted where en masse edits have needlessly got several good editors off side. Not addressing KEC's participation in respect to these events has the converse effect: it endorses KEC as having acted without fault. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of LR and KEC as FoF

At the proposed FoF by TonyBallioni, I have noted the similarities between the actions and conduct of LR and those of KEC, in a similar position. The ostensive "fact" in respect to the proposed findings against LR appears to be that that they have "tag bombed" articles in about September 2017. There is evidence that KEC has tagged numerous articles and applied multiple tags to a substantial number.

Returning to the overall conduct issues alleged. It appears inconsistent to censure one editor while tacitly condoning another for conduct which is essentially the same.

I also note that TonyBallioni's assessment and conclusions were based on the premise and assumption.of "bad faith". This appears contrary to WP:5P4. It also assumes that the edits made are without value or a reasonably justifiable basis. On the otherhand, I have considered KEC's actions and behaviour from a premise of "good faith" and have found multiple instances where I have not been able to reconcile the conduct and behaviour with a premise of "good faith". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

KEC's off Wiki posts

A number of editors have referred to these in evidence and particularly that where KEC appears to be recruiting meatpuppets. I note no finding in respect to what appears to be a fairly serious matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's because we looked into it and found that what actually happened was that over a year ago coffman discussed concerns about the area. When asked what should be done, the response was that people interested in the area should register accounts and edit in any areas that interested them. Coffman suggested they might wish to do copyediting, add sources or cn tags, etc. No specific suggestions were made about sources or content. He didn't suggest any particular articles, talk pages, etc to edit. We found no evidence that his posts had any effect on Wikipedia, and telling people that they could create accounts and do normal editing in this way is not a bad thing, even if it had no results. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to clear this up. I trust that this is now sorted and hopefully that's the end of the matter. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it does not appear to sort this out. It appears KEC's comments were specifically directed at GWE. It appears the post is recruiting for "driveby tagging". It does not appear to suggest copyediting or actions that would improve WP such as adding sources. It appears that no specific suggestions were made about sources (such as adding, referring to or anything else), just that a {dubious} tag be subjectively added. Many of the allegations raised by KEC go back over a period of time. I note the common theme WRT KEC of CPUSH and that this is a case of long-term behaviour. The post was not (as it appears to me) telling people that they should do "normal editing". It uses the disparaging label of Wheraboo. It also appears totally contradictory to the proposed principle (1) of "camaraderie and mutual respect" (or collegiate and collaborative). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You are seriously misrepresenting his posts. The statement "It does not suggest copyediting or actions that would improve WP such as adding sources." is flat out wrong. I said "suggested they might wish to do copyediting, add sources or cn tags". You're telling me I'm wrong? The fact that he avoided naming specific sources is not a bad thing. The Committee knows all about this because he raised it with us. Please drop this, it's doing you no good to misrepresent what happened. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

revert trolling changes by sockpuppet

I note with some irony if not concern that approximately 20 edits by LR were reverted with the edit summary: revert trolling changes by sockpuppet. If the sockpuppet wants to propose these changes, they know where the talk page is.

This is a categorical statement, with no attempt to justify the allegation of trolling and with a pending investigation that ultimately found the allegation of sockpuppety unlikely. Applying multiple tags appears to be a large part of this allegation. The revert that accompanied the comment was "blanket". It didnot consider that any part of the edits were legitimate to any extent. I note that I have provided substantial evidence of KEC applying multiple tags to articles.

In my own case, I have been accused of making a personal attack for indicating significant similarities to troll behaviour, noting that an allegation with evidence is not a personal attack. I have made a genuine effort to present the basis for my observations. I do not dispute a finding that I have provided insufficient evidence but note the inconsistency where no substantive evidence has been provided.

On the other allegation regarding my links though, I do note that evidence indicates that the particular allegation is vexatious in nature and unsubstantiated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad (and others)

You will note, in my discussion with TonyBallioni, that it was not my intention to offend anyone by the links I posted in the request phase of this case. In a comment at the PD, you have observed that you are still angry about it. I offer an unreserved apology for the posting of the particular links which I will characterise as a significant faux pas made in ignorance of how or why these might be perceived as offensive. Again, I thank TonyBallioni for engaging in a fruitful and constructive dialogue.

You are correct in your observation that I attempted to caution the Committee of possible well intended (and probably unintended) consequences of where this case might lead. One of these was censorship. Related, but more insidious was the potential to dictate ideology and to become the "thought police". Finally, to censure and even remove those that might express a reasonable but contrary opinion.

I would note the assessment by TonyBallioni, in the course of our discussion. Also, three editors, mainly in respect to the lack of a scope, made comparisons to a which hunt or an inquisition. I do not raise this to diminish or mitigate the links initially posted or to qualify the apology offered with respect to the posting of those links. I would hope that you see the distinction between my actions and my intentions. My apology goes wholly to my actions and the links that I chose, which I acknowledge to have been inappropriate and to have given offence. I further note that the links were directed to ArbCom and not at ArbCom. It is a subtle distinction that appears to have been interpreted as being the latter, following your recent at this TP. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Much has been made of my comments at this TP and perhaps I might explain. Despite some comments, I have not tried to introduce new evidence or raise new issues. Nor have I intended to re-litigate the case.

There is an explicit statement that ArbCom seeks to make an informed and fair decision. To my understanding, fairness in a decision-making process requires that all of the evidence presented is objectively weighed and, where there are inconsistencies, these are reconciled. There is also the maxim that a decision should be both fair and be seen to be fair.

My intent has not been to question the fairness of the proposed decision or to re-litigate the issues. Rather, I have pointed out inconsistencies in the proposed decision that appear not to have been addressed or reconciled. This creates the "appearance" of a lack of fairness. I sincerlely thought that ArbCom would be as concerned by this as I am. I apologise that this has been interpreted as bludgeoning.

• On the matter of KEC's off-wiki posts, I have emailed Doug Weller an archive of the post/thread to which I have been referring. I do not believe that I have misrepresented it. It appears quite inconsistent with the finding proposed WRT this issue. In my understanding, to reconcile conflicting evidence, one should point to to the conflicting evidence and why one evidence is reasonably and objectively preferred over the other. To indicate only the preferred evidence gives the impression of “cherry picking”.

• "Procedural fairness" is a synonym for "natural justice". The usual ArbCom procedure might be appropriate in most cases but appears to fail here because it attempts to capture a large body of evidence in relatively few statements without sufficient explanation of how these statements "fairly" assess the evidence.

Statements from this case should (IMO) be clear, unambiguous and "well based". This does not require ArbCom to take sides or to censure individuals. However, without sufficient and fair guidance from ArbCom, the underlying issues will continue to ferment with [the potential for] further disruption to the project. I believe this to be a reasonable concern.

• I note the comments that my submissions in this case are casting aspersions, personalising and like. The conduct of KEC is specifically a subject of this case. Posts I have made go directly to the scope and/or matters arising in the conduct of this case. I believe my statement have been offered in a manner that is both neutral in tone and objective in nature. They have been substantiated by links, with further detail provided here (though the page view log suggests that little consideration has been given to it). I have tried to avoid editorialising as I consider it to be subjective and generally unhelpful. I have been conscious to try to avoid personalising observations being made in consequence of evidence presented - using phases like "it appears/suggests [to me] that ...", rather than a more direct and personalised statement like "they are". I believe that I have argued the facts, rather than personalities even though they relate to persons. I find it odd to censure me for such conduct, particularly when I perceive conduct of others that falls well short of the standard I have tried to set and/or commensurate with conduct for which I am being censured. I find broadly generalised and subjective statements to be unclear and unhelpful.

• Serial Number 54129 has offered "fresh evidence" that "User:Cinderella157 quite comprehensively drove me away from MilHist some time ago", yet they have been less than forthcoming with anything to substantiate this allegation. If the matter is to be given credence, should not the circumstances be investigated first? I would be quite happy for it to be, since I see this to be a significant misrepresentation of our very limited interaction.

• Yes, I did edit recently to Erwin Rommel. Some time ago (in respect to this case), I had cause to read this article. I made some copy edits and posted two content questions to the TP to which I received a reply. I might do the same to any article I read. More recently, I noted that edits had not been made reflecting the responses. When I addressed these, I found BMK quite hostile. This is of concern to me.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, per the general finding of fact: I think it pertinent that KEC did not "raise" their concerns but "acted on" them.

KrakatoaKatie. Re your: Cinderella157's and Auntieruth55's conduct as Military History WikiProject coordinators FoF. All of the links provided were posted by AuntieRuth. I would reiterate the conclusion of Peacemaker regarding evidence.

My concerns generally go to transparency. Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Alex Shih and your response to Kingsindian.[10] At FoF6, there are two links. One is in reference to my links in the case request. In alleging my links were a personal attack, KEC posted links but none of these were made by me (a matter I asked to be clarified but was not). Newyorkbrad, opposing, has identified evidence that this is not a PA. On the otherhand, making this allegation in the face of clearly conflicting evidence does appear to fall to a PA.

The other link is to my comments at Molders. My evidence is that I intended this to be sufficiently circumspect that I was not claiming KEC was a troll. I have given substantial evidence as to what caused me to conclude similarities. I do not dispute that I may not have provided sufficient evidence per the FoF but I have provided a body of evidence. Such a simple statement does not provide a "detailed rationale for the decision". I note comments that are well outside the fact being found and one comment, which I would characterise as an unmitigated and unqualified ad hominem personal attack. In the circumstances, I find this particularly ironic - am I to be held to a higher standard than those that judge me?

There are a number of matters in the PD that are outstanding and/or unreconciled - including (but not limited to) those identified in your response to Kingsindian. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad, if I might respond regarding FoF 6 and the second link. Newyorkbrad, in their comment there, linked to my TP and the discussion with TonyBallioni. In this discussion, I explicitly stated that the links I made were not directed at KEC. I observed,that to do so would be a personal attack and that I was "looking beyond the individuals involved". I made these statements well before there was any suggestion of the second link being a PA on KEC. I think this is the basis of NYB's comment to this at FoF 6. It is also the basis of my last post WRT this second link at FoF 6. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by MastCell

I'm perplexed by the proposed remedies, or lack thereof. I understand that, because everyone involved (with the exception of LargelyRecyclable) was acting in good faith, there's a reluctance to make any strong pronouncements. But to me this case seems pretty straightforward:

• Multiple biographies of Nazi military figures were created—and promoted—despite their heavy reliance on unacceptably poor sources (amateur self-published work, outright Nazi or neo-Nazi propaganda, etc). I think we can agree that the evidence shows some pretty serious failings in the MILHIST GA review and promotion process for these articles.
• When the shortcomings were pointed out and addressed by K.e.coffman, the response from the MILHIST coordinators was inappropriately defensive, and focused on marginalizing Coffman rather than addressing the very real sourcing problems in the articles.
• Some of the arguments raised by the MILHIST coordinators against Coffman show a shockingly poor grasp of basic site policy (as detailed in my evidence submission), and seem intended more to shut Coffman down than to articulate a thoughtful approach to a content dispute.

I'm concerned that, even now, there seems to be no recognition of the problem on the part of the named MILHIST parties. As far as I can tell, based on their comments on this page, they remain focused on attacking Coffman's motivations and tactics. I don't think anyone (except LargelyRecyclable) is deserving of formal sanctions, but certainly ArbCom should reinforce some basic expectations about editorial responsibility. In particular, the MILHIST coordinators seem to have laid claim to significant authority but don't seem willing to accept any responsibility for the problems with the articles, nor have I seen much introspection about how to prevent such problems from persisting or recurring. A firm reminder seems appropriate, in lieu of any formal sanctions, to the effect that:

• Good and Featured content is expected to represent high-quality work, and reviewers are vouching for article quality when these articles are promoted;
• Everyone makes mistakes, but everyone is also expected to respond maturely when their mistakes are pointed out, and to make an effort to address those mistakes. Specifically, when major sourcing problems are identified in promoted content, then WikiProject coordinators should ideally aid, or at least not actively impede, efforts to fix those problems.
• It might be helpful for the MILHIST coordinators to review basic site policy, so that they understand why some of their arguments against Coffman were so problematic. I think it's fair to expect any editor—but especially a project coordinator—to understand that books are not categorically reliable by the mere fact of their existence, and that there is a difference between Nazi propaganda and the New York Times in terms of reliability and usefulness.

In my view, this whole contretemps could have been avoided if the MILHIST coordinators had made an effort to actually consider the merits of Coffman's comments, rather than coordinating to marginalize him as a troublemaker, as they quite apparently did. If ArbCom doesn't make that clear, then the whole case is pretty much a waste of time and issues like this are likely to recur. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Re-upping this: Arbs, are you really going to close this with only a ban for LR (which was already sort of a given) and an admonition to use good sources "whenever possible"? Looking at the responses here from Cinderella157 and others, do you believe that remedy is adequate? Serious question: when you read Cinderella157's posts here, do you go away thinking, "Wow, there's someone who really gets it, and who should be in a position of authority and responsibility over content disputes"?

  It's one thing to question Auntieruth55's decision to promote a GA based almost entirely on Nazi propaganda—after all, that was years ago—but what evidence is there that anything is different today? WP:MILMOS#SOURCES states very clearly that With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. It looks to me like Coffman made the mistake of expecting the MILHIST coordinators to actually believe their own policies. What excuse have the named MILHIST parties given for failing to even pretend to live up to their own clearly articulated standards in this topic area?

  Here's what I see: several members of MILHIST made a mess—a bunch of poorly sourced, mythopoeic biographies of Nazi "war heroes". When Coffman identified that mess and tried to fix it, they had the options of a) helping out, or b) sitting back and letting him clean up their mess. A) is the best answer, although b) is also acceptable, since we're all volunteers here. Instead they chose secret option c): they worked together to obstruct Coffman, and went so far as to engage in ridiculous "both-sides"-isms to enable an obvious harassment. They seem to expect Coffman to behave flawlessly, while they line up to call him a "vandal" and defend crappy sourcing.

  Leaving aside all of that, Cinderella157's behavior in this case—heck, on this page—alone is worth of some sort of corrective action. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, I think you have it right. As I say a little below on this page, I think the decision represents endorsement of KEC's position on the sourcing. I had proposed stronger wording on some of the key matters (RS, & the role of the WikiProject) ; that it was not accepted shows how futile it would have been to say directly anything stronger. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• MastCell, as a minor point of order, I think articles like Helmuth Förster and Karl Allmendinger included in evidences submitted by Peacemaker67 is a reflection of a), which I agree is the best practice. This is the reason why I think Peacemaker67 should be excluded from most if not all the conversation about shortcomings of MILHIST coordinators; I have not really seen many similar productive approaches by Cinderella157 and Auntieruth55. Using these two articles as an example, I think in both instances K.e.coffman has misused the {{notability}} template as part of their general cleanup attempt in articles relating to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. This is why I think it is necessary to highlight the way K.e.coffman has communicated their approach; the way I understand K.e.coffman's tagging is that they are simply asking for coverage from higher quality sources. But in both instances, it was reasonable to perceive that K.e.coffman was implying that both of these subjects did not meet WP:GNG, even though the presumed notability was fairly clear (at least from my understanding). I think this is one of the reasons, certainly not a justification, that leads to negative perception of K.e.coffman's editing from named MILHIST parties over the years. Alex Shih (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A timely test case

In the last month or so, MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs), the architect of a number of the questionable Nazi biographies, has once again become active in the topic area. Despite his nominal retirement, he has expanded a number of Nazi military biographies, claiming the authority of MILHIST project guidelines, including the following:

• Joachim Brendel: massively expanded "according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies"
• Wilhelm Lemke: massively expanded "according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies"
• Werner Mölders: massively expanded "according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies"
• Günther Josten, Kurt Ubben, Egon Mayer, etc.

Do these expansions reflect the content and sourcing standards of the MILHIST project? The edits are being presented explicitly as supported by MILHIST guidelines. Pinging Peacemaker67, Auntieruth55, AustralianRupert for feedback.

(Incidentally, MisterBee1966 was not included as a party to this case, presumably because his userpage announces that he's retired. He stands out in my mind mostly for his obsession with the length and straightness of the noses of various Nazi soliders - Heinrich Bar's "nose is long and straight", Friedrich Geisshardt's "nose is long and straight", Joachim Helbig's "nose is long and straight", Kurt Welter's "nose is long and straight", and so on. Make of that what you will). MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni

@Opabinia regalis, Alex Shih, and Newyorkbrad: I think intuitively the circumstantial evidence and the continued pattern of harassment makes the situation worse, but I get that the FOF is asking ArbCom to rule as to an editor's motives: I think ArbCom can rule on this if there is reasonable evidence (which there has been IMO), but also get why there might be hesitation on this point, if only for epistemological reasons.

A middle ground on that FOF might be something long the lines of LargelyRecyclable began harassing K.e.coffman immediately after registering: it makes it clear that the actions from the very start were targeted at one editor without having the committee state in a definitive manner the motives of an editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Euryalus, hating to be in somewhat disagreement with you here, but I'll restate what I think I said elsewhere on this case: these are actions that if taken to a noticeboard or that if an individual admin had noticed them would have easily resulted in an indef block that would have had approx. 0 chance of an unblock. That it took an ArbCom case to deal with it should not make it so that they get to still be a part of our community after joining this website for the purpose of harassing another human being. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony, not sure we actually do disagree, I'm just a bit more softhearted. I notice as a committee we tend to align pretty fast on the evidence but then take some predictable positions on degree of response, with me and 2-3 others usually on the milder end. Helps to have all views represented I guess. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67, Alex Shih, KrakatoaKatie, and Doug Weller: per my comments in the case I think any sanctions here (oddly enough) should avoid the phrase German War Effort, because it’s not entirely clear what that means. I think if a tighter TBAN were to be proposed it should either be topic banned from the topics related to the history of Germany 1932-1945, broadly construed. (First choice as it would deal with any of the pre-war buildup stuff.) or alternatively topic banned from the World War II history of Germany. Both of these are narrower than the curren proposed sanction, but also much clearer than “GWE”. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @KrakatoaKatie: not sure if this was your intent with narrowing the tban, but as written currently, 3C would allow for edits and discussions about the topic area on pages that aren’t related to it (i.e. ANI, WT:MILHIST, AE, etc.) because it is written as a page ban not a topic ban (or maybe a topic ban on pages?). It might just be best to tweak it to just say is topic banned from... and let the standard TBAN rules apply (assuming this is your intent). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie and Doug Weller: based on Sandstein’s interpretation of an almost identically worded sanction (courtesy ping) can someone clarify if Cinderella157’s TBAN applies only to edits, only to pages, or both before this closes. I’d hate this to come to ARCA in a few weeks. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Peacemaker67 (and any arb who cares), my general view that I tried to express above is that typically TBANs should be standard and include pages and edits solely for the sake of simplicity enforcing them. In this case that would mean Adolf Hitler would be off-limits as a page even if the edits were about his WW1 military career, but edits to any MilHist page would generally be fine, unless it was something like revisiting the Knights Cross discussion/anything else from 1932-1945 Germany, where the edits would be related. I think this is also what Katie and Doug were going for, but given the diff from Sandstein I linked above on an unrelated case with similar language, I think it should be clarified by the committee both for simplicity in enforcement and so Cinderella has clarity. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Agree with Tony that topic bans should be structured the usual way - no edits to pages solely or almost solely about the subject area, and no edits on other pages where that edit specifically relates to a section, or to specific content, that is within the subject area. So "Adolf Hitler" is off limits even re WWI, as the section of that article on WWI is only notable given Hitler's subsequent role in WWII. By contrast an article on "German industry through the ages" would be fine to edit, except for example if the edit was to add details of tank production in the 1940s. And so on. A regular t-ban doesn't need a defined list of articles or article sections, and is generally most easily applied by the t-banned editor just steering clear of that topic and developing editing interests in unrelated topics. All that said, am opposed to this t-ban at all per my vote on the remedy. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Doug Weller and Euryalus: the change looks good to me and sorry to bother, but given the current ARCA, thought it better to get it clarified now. Always a pleasure working with both of you TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Bishonen, I'm fine with whatever works. I'm sure ArbCom has some list of past generic TBANS to draw from. If they want to use the language from the current ARCA, that's fine. I just don't want an AE thread ending in "Go to ARCA because we aren't sure we can enforce the clear intent of the remedy." to happen again. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Pudeo

@Cinderella157 and Doug Weller: it could be that you are discussing a different off-wiki post given that apparently K.e.coffman had deleted some of his posts there, and as I understand Cinderella157 had ran across them already a year ago or so. But as a person who submitted evidence about that off-wiki stuff, I don't think it warrants a FoF at this point. Those posts were in mid-2016 and there was nothing that egregious. I would only keep that in mind as background information that he wasn't a saint either.

As for why would anyone have a motive to remove things like a date of birth? Find out what damnatio memoriae is.

I'm sure the proposed decision is a slight disappointment both to K.e.coffman and people who submitted evidence against him. Only the LR part was easy, the rest is really complex and involves hundreds of articles. But there should be no pressure to force FoFs, a null result is still a result. People who used questionable sources acted in good-faith. And even if there were a few very negative comments about K.e.coffman, no one really fought to bring back the intricate detail or revert redirects. If it wasn't properly contested, it's fruitless to cry about it now. That's about it. --Pudeo (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's good to hear you pointing out that this is not the decision many of the parties wanted and the complexity of the situation. I had hoped something more would come of it, but of course what we (the Committee) can do in cases like this is always limited, and there wasn't the participation I'd hoped for.

I obviously have no idea what Cinderella157 saw or didn't see, but I wasn't happy about being so flatly being told I was wrong. It's always better when you think someone has said something wrong to ask them about it - in a spirit of " "camaraderie and mutual respect". Doug Weller talk 18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think of the result a little differently. Given the reluctance of Arb Com to go one step outside its own interpretation of its limitations, the decision represents a tacit endorsement of K. e coffman's position-- certainly of his position on the value of some of the references proposed by some other contributors, but I think also of his position on the subject generally. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Yes, I accidentally mentioned "date of birth" on this talk page when I should have talked about "birth places". Your removal of birth places is detailed in Peacemaker67's evidence and I also talked about birth places, not dates, in the Workshop. How is removing birth and death places from biographies any better, though? You are grasping at straws here. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Re topic ban for Cinderella157: the narrower scope is better, but I believe his conduct is not related to the topic specifically. I can't say I know him because I've never heard of him before this case, but he seems to use a lot of time to reply to specific points in detail and bring up new ones (did you read he made a 40 mb Excel file for analyzing KEC's edits?), which results in walls of text that can bog down and swamp the experience for others. Combined with some apparent stubbornness, he made some off-color remarks about the witch trials etc. To me, that seems more like the actions of a person who's really invested in the details mostly in good faith, but not always succeeding in communicating it well. The topic ban is only justified if you think the German war effort is the only topic he feels so strongly about that brings forth this conduct, otherwise I think it's inappropriate and something else should be thought of. --Pudeo (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992

Apparently those of us who have taken the time to edit Wikipedia articles about World War 2 have been discussed elsewhere. [11] I, for one, was not aware of this discussion, described as "off-wiki" although probably unrelated to the former "offwiki.org" site. I would like to know where these comments were made, and what was said. I have re-enabled email, although I think a better way would be for the people who posted the comments to be honest and open about what they posted and why. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• @DGG: You ask, how substantial a dereliction do you think it to be? Well, in this respect, we are talking about biographical articles. As you know, certain basic information is the foundation of a biography. So, deliberately and unnecessarily removing basic biographical information -- such as date of birth or place of birth -- from a biography, is about as serious a dereliction as it can get. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I disagree. The most important thing about a biography is to say in an NPOV manner what the subject did that is notable, not to give details of his life that have no direct bearing on this. We usually do include dates; when disputed, or sources are inadequate, we do not. It was mentioned elsewhere on this page that those who thought the dates important should have found better sources for them. That they did not do so indicates their expressed concern here is based on a desire to show another editor in the worst possible light regardless of fairness. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've not seen any evidence that the removed dates of birth were disputed, or any indication of such a dispute. Regardless, I find the dismissal of the importance of basic biographical information to be a strange viewpoint in the extreme. I'll leave you to your ruminations on what you believe about the motivations of other editors. MPS1992 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting the chilling effect that the proposed decision is already having on Featured Article processes. I mentioned disruption of article quality processes in the Evidence phase. This is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bishonen

(Just back from vacation). I share MastCell's frustration. Only a sanction for LargelyRecyclable as the outcome of all this? Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Specifically to Newyorkbrad: You have expressed yourself strongly about Cinderella57's "famous links" here: "The links at the end of Cinderella157's opening statement are outrageous, and on this Proposed decision page: "I have only negative things to say about the way in which Cinderella157 made this point—frankly, I am still angry about it". But, you say, "I don't read it as primarily an attack on K.e.coffman". So..? Does it have to be shoehorned in under the description "personal attacks against K.e.coffman" in order to rise to a finding? It's still bad conduct, isn't it, and still very much related to this case? Several arbitrators have opined that Cinderella has behaved poorly, that his excessive bludgeoning needs to be addressed, etc, but nothing seems to fructify beyond an "admonishment" at best. It seems to me Cinderella's conduct on this very page shows he'll learn nothing from that, as any criticism so far has merely inspired him to further litigiousness. Have you considered a formal warning, at least, or the kind of "firm reminder" that MastCell has proposed for MILHIST coordinators in general? Bishonen | talk 23:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC).

As I mentioned in my vote comment, I construed Cinderella's obnoxious comment as being aimed primarily at the arbitrators. I always hesitate to propose findings or remedies against editors for being obnoxious towards arbitrators, partly became it can come off as self-interested on our part and partly because for better or worse, being the recipient of obnoxiousness seems to be part of the job description. That being said, his rhetoric in this case was truly spectacularly over the top, and his excesses on this page were ... um, excessive. I'll give it some thought, and let's see what other arbs think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Newyorkbrad. You think he was pre-emptively mooning the jury, so as to become unsanctionble? I didn't take it like that, but I suppose I congratulate you on reaching any coherent interpretation of Cinderella's train of thought or argument. Anyway, even if the links were obscurely alluding to ArbCom, it was surely in an extremely impersonal and distant way. I don't believe Cinderella had had any previous experience of, or opinion about, our arbitration system, ArbCom, or the individuals who make up the committee. Likening an attempt by KEC to get help with their problem to Salem witch trials etc, surely has little to do with obnoxiousness towards arbitrators — to a clutch of unfamiliar names — as individuals. Yes, it was obnoxious, but might you be taking it too personally in thinking the obnoxiousness was so directed towards yourself and other arbs as to make you come off as self-interested if you take notice of it/propose sanctions against it? Take an opposite example: If a party in a case casts aspersions on arbs, explains that he knows how corrupt they are, and can prove it, and therefore he expexts no justice — that's the kind of obnoxiousness that needs either sanctioning, if it's without merit, or needs a re-trial with a new jury, if it does have merit. You might call it directional mooning. That case is in so many ways nothing like what we have here. Might you not be able to just ignore any non-directional bare bottoms thrown up along the way, and ignore any farfetched six-degrees-of-separation relevance to yourselves? Bishonen | talk 01:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC). PS, Cinderella now seems to be agreeing with me that he wasn't mooning the arbs specifically. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

• @Euryalus: you said just now, in explanation of your Oppose to a topic ban for Cinderella, that you think the issue of Cinderella's personalising of disputes and excessive bludgeoning of discussions during this case "would be addressed by finishing up this case and letting everyone calm down". I suppose you don't mean literally everyone involved in the case. But a) who besides Cinderella is it you believe needs to calm down? Do you find MastCell too excited, for example, or me? KEC already seems extremely calm. And b) it's tautological that Cinderella's poor behaviour during the case will stop when the case closes, but are you sure they will then behave better, stop re-litigating, assuming bad faith, etc? Why would you expect it? How about a ban from trashing the motives and the work of others? Pinging @KrakatoaKatie: also. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
  • • Thanks for the message, and no it's not meant to be taken that literally. Phrases like "let's all calm down" are just a collegiate way of relating the individual back to the group, so it easier for people to return to reasoned conduct without feeling embarrassed at being singled out. Some people get tense and argumentative during Arbcom cases and say over-dramatic or aggressive things. Occasionally this requires sanctions. Other times it just needs a request for calm and an encouragement for people to remember themselves a little. The conduct we're discussing seems out of character, and is potentially brought on by the temporary tensions of the case. I reckon it's worth pursuing that hypothesis before jumping in with any long lasting restrictions. We're very close to winding this case up; if tensions persist once it's closed we can revisit the actions required. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • "Let's all calm down"? That wasn't exactly what you said. Indeed, in my experience, encouragement to "calm down" doesn't often include the speaker. I actually wrote a little essay about the condescension of urging people to calm down. You, by contrast, think it's helpful and collegiate and can make people "remember themselves a little". We disagree, that's all.

And we also disagree about the conduct being "out of character". Also, I may not follow arbitration enough — but I'm actually not aware of any case where the committee has pursued a benevolent let's-just-all-get-along hypothesis in its final decision, and then, when tensions have turned out to persist, have revisited the actions required, as you put it. Could you give me an example where that has happened? Or do you simply mean that if "tensions persist", users can again request arbitration? I don't think people have the heart for starting over, as it's an exhausting and frustrating business — just think of the time invested in this case by KEC — so I sincerely hope that's not what you mean. Finally, are you really all close to winding up the case? Or is that more a hope you express? Bishonen | talk 23:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC).

Oh, I think I should probably have pinged Euryalus. Bishonen | talk 07:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

• • Civility restrictions have a long history of not working very well as they're so subjective, which makes them easily gamed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Right, PMC. A hundred years ago Giano, and maybe Eric Corbett too, got "civility paroles", something I'm sure there's no appetite for now, as the experience of it was very bad. But there's an unusual, more recent, case, from 2016, which I won't name, with the remedy "X is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". More specific than a general "civility restriction". That's the one I had in mind. But for a non-subjective remedy, how about a simple word restriction? That might take care of some of the bludgeoning. E. g., "Cinderella is prohibited from posting more than 500 words (or whatever) in any one discussion." Bishonen | talk 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC).

Swallowing camels and straining at gnats

@Alex Shih: I was glad to see you say under "LargelyRecyclable has harassed other users" that "in hindsight I am not sure if LargelyRecyclable's out of the blue personal attack post against Bishonen can be an example of "harassment"." I totally agree that LR's attacks on me aren't worthy of a finding. They're not even a blip on the screen compared to various serious matters the committee has ignored. For instance, Auntie Ruth encouraged and enabled obstructionism and harassment towards KEC, while asserting coordinator authority, as evidenced here and here. Also she has shown continued obliviousness in her own evidence, which dismisses the ANI thread Assayer and I pointed to with a "Look here if you can stand to lose about 30 minutes of your life in unraveling a singularly pointless exercise in wikilawyering".[12] That kind of thing is likely to have serious consequences; impoliteness towards Bishonen isn't. I urge the committee not to waste space on it. You're swallowing camels, please don't strain at a gnat. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

Active/inactive: how is BU Rob's single oppose going to compute?

The note at the top of the Proposed Decision page states that "For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 4 who are inactive, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority". So how's that gonna compute if one supposedly inactive arb, BU Rob13, posts to make, for that moment only, 12 active arbitrators, by opposing at one specific decision ("Cinderella157 interaction ban")?[13] I'm rather surprised it's apparently acceptable to the committee to do so. Is being "generally inactive" really a thing? Pinging the drafters, @Newyorkbrad, Doug Weller, and Alex Shih: IMO it would have been proper for Rob to add a note of protest against the remedy if he wanted to, but to add a formal oppose, with a # sign to make it count, is not. But that's me. Anyway, how is it supposed to be implemented? Does that particular remedy need 7 supports to pass? A little messy, isn't it? I will post a link to this question on the clerks' page, but I wanted the arbs to see it too (insofar as they do look at this page). Bishonen | talk 08:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

This has already been discussed with the clerks. There's one more active arbitrator for that remedy. Whether that remedy passes or fails will be computed based on twelve active arbitrators, with seven supports being required to pass the remedy. This is equivalent to being active on the case but abstaining on all votes except the one, but it involves significantly less paperwork for the clerks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The standard topic ban

Re "topic ban": @TonyBallioni and Doug Weller: topic bans are very well and clearly defined at WP:TBAN. I'd just link to that in the remedy if I were you, Doug. That gives the normal, ordinary topic ban, which is frequently given as a discretionary sanction, and I don't see any reason for this one to be different. On the contrary, any difference risks inviting Kremlinology to interpret it. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

Comments by K.e.coffman

@Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, and Doug Weller: Re Peacemaker's comment: Without wanting to spend more time... and let's set that aside... [14]. He made the charge of me removing "dates of birth" six times during the workshop, so I pinged him about it [15], to which he did not respond. Yet Peacemaker brings it up again here, and then suggests that he doesn't have the time to substantiate his statements.

As an aside, the infoboxes were discussed at MILHIST about a year ago; I linked to the thread in my evidence: #Details. Here's the thread again: "Need help to restore content of military personnel infoboxes that has been deleted in Nazi-hunt". The responses to the OP included:

You need to be careful that any information re-added to the infobox is cited somewhere, either in the infobox itself or elsewhere in the article (...) The infobox clearout appears less a case of a "Nazi-hunt" and more applying proper standards about sourcing. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course all information should be recorded. In the article, not the infobox. The infobox is for a summary. (...) ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I responded as well; the discussion then devolved into accusations of "book burning" and further mentions of "Nazi-hunting": "Response". In any case, I thought that was the end of it, as the infoboxes did not come up again. Peacemaker had participated in the discussion. Still, he concludes here, a year later, with what sounds like a conspiracy theory: And for what possible purpose did K.e.coffman delete this information? Apparently, to further my "anti-military" (aka "anti-Nazi") [16] agenda to remove "military sources" [17] and to "undermine NPOV" [18].

In Peacemaker's footsteps, Pudeo, another MILHIST regular, makes the same claim why would anyone have a motive to remove things like a date of birth?, while also accusing me of engaging in "damnatio memoriae" [19]. MPS makes the same claim: So, deliberately and unnecessarily removing basic biographical information -- such as date of birth (...) is about as serious a dereliction as it can get. (An appropriate thing for Peacemaker to have done would have been to correct their misconceptions; instead, he merely "acknowledged [that] I haven't provided evidence of [such removals]" [20]).

Similar to Peacemaker, Cinderella seemingly wants to relitigate the entire case here, again casting aspersions on my editing, with headers such as "KEC's POV", "WP:OWN", and "WP:CPUSH". Anticipating such challenges was the reason why I had proposed DS. When the next apologist and denier like LR comes along, I'm concerned that ANI would not be effective nor feasible. Note, for example, how quickly LR and Cinderella found common ground to attack me on the Werner Molders page: thread (while the rest of MILHIST coords looked on); that was six weeks after LR created his account. At the RFAR, Peacemaker seemed more concerned about my "unclean hands" than LR's harassment. Having access to a moderated AE board would improve dispute resolution in the area. With all of this in mind, I would request the Committee to please reconsider DS. Alternatively, I would appreciate the committee's opinion on how dispute resolution can proceed in this area. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I am posting here just to acknowledge your comment. Since you are basically asking for a committee response, this will probably take some time as no individual arbitrators are able to speak on behalf of "committee's opinion"; although from what I have read so far, re-considering DS is unlikely to happen. Alex Shih (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Scherzer

Since both Peacemaker and Pudeo are relitigating the Scherzer source, I’ll address it, even though I’d provided a general response during the Workshop phase here: #KEC undermined NPOV. @Alex Shih: re: removing (argubly primary?) sources like Scherzer, and then deleting information based on that source…, it's more complicated than that, both how the source was added, and removed. Indeed, I removed Scherzer under WP:FURTHER as "unused militaria book": [21]. I also removed places of birth / death from infoboxes as uncited, mostly from micro-stub articles, where an unsourced infobox was out of proportion to the rest of the content. Of note, when a general was killed in action or died in captivity, I did not remove the place of death, even when uncited, as this is relevant to his "military" bio (which is of Peacemaker’s concern). Sample: Friedrich Hochbaum. But is it essential to know where a former general, long since a civilian, died of old age in his bed?

What Peacemaker has failed to do is to use Scherzer to cite this information. Instead, he chose to hand-wave, rather than put in the work of citing material. He also failed to bring Scherzer up at RSN, so his opinion that it’s a "secondary" source is just that – his opinion. Here’s a few pages of Scherzer: Die Ritterkreuzträger. It’s not a "dictionary of biography"; neither does it contain information about the subjects' early life nor WWI service.

In general, I addressed such phaleristics sources in my essay, under: Some sources belong.... When I performed the “Naz-hunting” infobox clear-outs, I removed Scherzer, alongside a host of other unused sources, identified in this discussion as "neo-Nazi publications". These sources had been inserted, one could say "on an industrial scale", into hundreds of articles. The purpose of these additions is unclear as these books were not used for citations: sample. As a MILHIST member, I consider the presence of such sources to be a blot on the project’s reputation; that’s why I removed them: [22].

Peacemaker did not make a case for Scherzer’s presence in the articles under WP:FURTHER either. It’s an obscure, German-language, WP:SPS source. Frankly, it looked like WP:LINKSPAM and promotionalism to me. An unused source’s presence in (or absence from) articles is an editorial judgement. I still don’t consider this to be a matter for ArbCom, but Peacemaker & Pudeo are persisting with this line of inquiry ("You are grasping at straws" [23]; "makes articles less comprehensive" [24], etc); that’s why I’m addressing this here.

@Pudeo: Re: this comment, I refer you to the very post you were responding to, specifically to the quote box that starts with "You need to be careful that any information re-added to the infobox…". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Prior history

Re Peacemaker's comment on this TP: The tagging campaign was a significant cause of friction with other Milhist editors, especially when WP:SOLDIER makes it clear that officers of the rank of Generalmajor... [25], he is again misremembering things. His "friction" with me predates what he terms my "tagging campaign" (I assume summer 2016, following the initial AfDs on Knight's Cross recipients). Here are select encounters with Peacemaker prior to that "campaign":

• December 2015 (about unsourced content which I can only describe as fan-fiction): "If you take this sort of action on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article" (emphasis mine) -- right, because it's not a completely impossible thing to do. Source: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2015/December#Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material at 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking.

• January 2016 (in re: my attempt to remove a title by a full-on Nazi from Further reading): "I believe MB agrees with my take on it, so you don't have consensus." In the same discussion, Peacemaker apparently advocates using extremist sources because "sometimes these books are the only, or one of the only, books in English that provide the basic information on the movements and actions of a particular unit or formation" -- historical denial be damned. Source: Talk:Helmuth von Pannwitz#Nikolai Tolstoy.

• March 2016 (in a MILHIST discussion about GA/FA articles sourced to a known fabulist and revisionist Franz Kurowski): "I for one am pretty sick of you banging on about this bloke [Kurowski]. ... this is pretty much a crusade." [26]

• June 2016: "A problem that at least contributed ... very hard line anti-Nazi de WP which is now being aggressively pushed here by a few editors, to the detriment..." etc. [27]. Peacemaker's subsequent attemps to paper over those comments and his complete failure to explain exactly how "anti-Nazi" equals "anti-military" just make it worse.

I would also add that such "friction" regarding sources and weight predates me, as can be seen from prior MILHIST discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 44#Helden der Wehrmacht (2013)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 122#Recent deletions of so called unreliable sources (2013)

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Article in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies

Lastly, David Stahel's article on Wikipedia's treatment of German WWII history has been published:

• Stahel, David. "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (3). Retrieved 21 July 2018.

For background, Stahel was one of the scholars who I had emailed about the topic area: User:K.e.coffman/Email. He subsequently provided one of the three statements that I had used as part of my evidence: User:K.e.coffman/Statement B.

The journal article is available in full at the above link. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tiny little section by Drmies

• I just read that! It's awesome! I'm disappointed I'm not mentioned, but LargelyRecyclable, guess what--you are, you're famous! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, and Doug Weller: would you mind adjusting the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Proposed decision#General finding section? Currently:

• "the strictly military and technical aspects" --> suggest changing to "the strictly battlefield and technical aspects"
• "individuals' military records" --> suggest changing to "individuals' service records"

This is more specific (i.e. "service record" is what they are known by) and more accurate, as soldiers' behaviour towards civilians in areas of military jurisdiction, treatment of prisoners-of-war, war crimes, etc are all part of military aspects of these bios. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour of Pudeo during the case

@Newyorkbrad, Alex Shih, and Doug Weller: I'm concerned about the continued targeting of my contributions by Pudeo (talk · contribs), even while the ArbCom case is in progress. For background, Pudeo expected sanctions against me at the onset of the case: "This has the potential to WP:BOOMERANG hard." In the course of the case, he solicited evidence about me from a like-minded editor: [28]. He continued with pursuing the dispute on this Talk page: "You are grasping at straws" [29].

As the boomerang did not occur, Pudeo continued to target my contributions via MFD of my user sub-page. He initially requested that I delete the page, which I politely declined: [30]. Pudeo was also counselled by a 3rd-party editor [31] but proceeded with the MfD anyway. At the MfD, he linked to the ArbCom case, suggesting that for him this was part of an on-going dispute [32], while also canvassing several editors to the MfD [33]. Pudeo also seemed unwilling to acknowledge that he had engaged in votestacking: thread. This suggests to me someone who's unable to let go and is willing to pursue a dispute beyond a reasonable point.

Separately, I emailed ArbCom with some private information -- could you please confirm receipt of my email? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Kingsindian

I find FoF 6 ("Conduct of Cinderella157") to be utterly baffling. Are we sanctioning editors based on one talk page comment now?

K.e. coffman has been perfectly clear (even on-wiki, see their Signpost op-ed), that they consider the WW2 articles unbalanced and promoting the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". To be absolutely clear: there is nothing wrong with believing this, and editing accordingly. People edit Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons, and correcting distortions is a primary one. This motive is one of my own main motives for editing Wikipedia. You know, "people are wrong on the internet".

The talk page comment by Cinderally157 cited is an editor expressing their opinion of K.e.coffman's editing. Of course, one should ideally comment on contributor, not content -- but slippages often occur, especially in political areas. One diff is now sufficient reason to topic ban? It's absurd. The other diffs mentioned in the evidence (not mentioned in the FoF) are also extremely mild.

Here's the issue: the political areas are full of people who dislike one another, to the point of hating their guts. Many of them believe that person X or Y is "pushing an agenda" -- this is what happens when people with differing beliefs about politics interact. Nobody should expect people to love one another; just to get along. Is there any evidence of Cinderella157 not getting along? Where is the evidence of any disruption? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. A bit late in the day, but this FoF deserves review before we close the case, the evidence is pretty thin. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

FoF 6 focuses on Cinderella157's misconduct toward K.e.coffman only; more review is always welcomed, but I think there is already sufficient evidence on this. It's the remedies against Cinderella157 that I personally don't believe are well-supported by the findings, but I will defer to whatever the emerging consensus is going to be. Alex Shih (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by LargelyRecyclable

Well, this has been an experience.

I don't have any complaints or bitching to do on my own plight, I'll take the whipping and be okay with it. I'm 90% sure my time here has been largely masochistic anyway.

A couple of questions though. What do I do with objectively untrue assertions in the ArbCom's "Proposed Descions" section? Such as "(Coffman has) not edited against the local consensus once it is clearly established" or nonsensical juxtapositions like the exculpatory "K.e.coffman has edited energetically on occasion to remove materials at times that are non-contentious but are either non-verifiable or based primarily on biased or questionable sources." combined with the milquetoast "Coffman is reminded that the use of biased and questionable sources are not prohibited by policy, especially when the content is verifiable, non-controversial and has been included by editorial consensus."

I know I'm on the way out, but this has been, by far, the most ridiculous ArbCom case I've ever seen. I get it, in 2018 there's some alt-right Nazi hiding behind every bush and it's the duty of every morally righteous person to root them out. Some guy is casting shade on military men who wore the uniform of the Third Reich? Some other guy is standing astride that campaign and yelling "STOP!"? Easy call. But, should I comment on those previous issues here? In, the appeal section? Should I just go away?

Also, on a small note, BeyondMyKen is clearly dying to know who I am. Just chomping at the bit. I'm sure he's not the only one. If it makes everyone feel better I have no issue with tying my present account to my whole editing history when I'm banned, as long as my Userpages are deleted first. My only concern is the PII that's been left on really, really old pages. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I once again just talking to myself in the ArbCom case filed against me? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, fine. As I couldn't get a reply from a clerk or an ArbCom member on even so much as a request for an extension on the actual, no kidding, evidence phase of the case filed against me, much less more detailed questions, this isn't a surprise. More than twelve years of editing history and this is the hill that ArbCom wants to make it's proclamation. You all disgust me.

I suppose I'll just rig the mainsail and go. I never, ever, harassed anyone. I never made a single edit that violated the pillars. You've no doubt made an example of me. Hope you're proud. Thanks for all the fish. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm at it, I don't want my full editing history disclosed. I want a clean break from Wikipedia and I don't need the hassle. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can't tell the history between this and that idea of this place then the basic idea of this place is dead. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no idea what this means:

@DeltaQuad: says,

"Given previous issues on other accounts (that didn't amount to clean start issues as declared by ArbCom in 2017 - I was inactive at the time)"

Excuse you? What issues?

"continued harassment"

Liar.

"not heeding to the advice given to step back"

From who?

Actual evidence please.

Let me be clear. I've been here for over a decade. I'm an editor in good standing. If an ArbCom member wants to cast aspersions on me after I've unequivocally passed a FRESHSTART check by ArbCom they better have more than sly insinuations. Otherwise, fuck you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Above you say "I don't want my full editing history disclosed". Therefore I can't go into what issues, continued harassment and advice that previously occurred. The fact that your asking is contradictory. As for your comment that you are an editor in good standing, you aren't. You are about to be banned by an 11-0 vote when the case finalizes. I'm not going to rehash the case or other Arb votes for you. I stand by any comments that I have made. I will not be replying further, unless you have a direct, good faith question that I can answer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So you'll publicly defame me but you won't provide any evidence? Awesome. You go ahead, I've provided my history below. Other than a shitty block from a de-sysoped mod for being frank I've had zero other blocks in ten years. Fuck your bullshit insinuations. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you've disclosed the user account below, I'll go ahead and point to the SPI that I reviewed the two other accounts not listed on GraniteSand's userpage Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GraniteSand/Archive. I'll let community members take a read and form their own opinions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhh, is that supposed to be incriminating? My debunked SPI is one of the reasons I disclosed my FRESHSTART. But, as an ArbCom member, you knew that. Right? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting, LargelyRecyclable. You have disclosed five accounts to the committee back in November 2017, and none of these accounts had a block registered by "de-sysoped mod". Would you like to elaborate on that? Alex Shih (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Damn, I just poke the bear a little and all of a sudden ArbCom members realize I'm alive. I can't get an approval for an extension but, shit, nasty things to say? Better get popin'. And the scumbag in question is, as you already know, User:Gamaliel. Did I miss a technicality? Is he okay again? Was is "only" a de-crat? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • LargelyRecyclable, unfortunately Gamaliel has never been desysopped nor "de-crat". So if you have another undisclosed account, please disclose now on your user talk page as I believe we are done here. Alex Shih (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh, wonderful, not only do I get to be tagged by random trolls, I get insulted by sitting arbitrators. Stay classy, Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Gamaliel: I pointed out to User:Alex Shih that this might be misunderstood, and he struck through unfortunately. He was saying that LR's statement was wrong because you haven't been desysopped or "de-crated", not that it was unfortunate you hadn't been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
          • Doug Weller Thank you for clearing that up, I retract my comment. Quite a thing to process over your morning coffee. And there's still the matter of the blatant personal attack above that which has yet to be redacted. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

I'm GraniteSand. Which means I'm other people. I'm not a troll. I'm not a Nazi. I'm a fairly decent guy.

I'm also leaving. I don't have any interest in being here anymore. What's happened to me over the past few months has so disgusted me that I simply can't imagine myself staying. My initial horror at a transparent ideological campaign has morphed into an inquisition against me. I see and understand that this is understood and approved by the ArbCom. I get it. This also means I don't belong here anymore. Wikipedia has changed a lot over the years and I don't belong here anymore. It's not a place for me. Good luck to you all. I genuinely hope it works out. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)