Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

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

Evidence presented by TonyBallioni[edit]

LargelyRecyclable was created to harass K.e.coffman

Their first mainspace edit was to tagbomb an article extensively worked on by K.e.coffman. They followed this up with their next mainspace edit a day later, proposing a merge of one of the GAs created by K.e.coffman, Rommel myth. They then taggbommbed Rommel myth, and edit warred over keeping the tagbomb: [1], [2] (note, I warned them about it, and further explained here).

LargelyRecyclable's next edit on different mainspace article was this edit. It seems minor, until you realize that the last edit to that article was 15 months previous, by K.e.coffman. Following some other edits on the articles already mentioned, LR tagged the Rommel myth article for community GA review.

These are just LR's first 48 hours worth of edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LargelyRecyclable was warned

While unblocking them, MastCell warned LargelyRecyclable not to repeat their edit warring and tagbommbing. MastCell additionally pointed out that their singular focus on one editor was below the standards we expected on Wikipedia, but did not amount to to block at that time: [3] TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LargelyRecyclable continued to harass K.e.coffman

LargelyRecyclable's first edits outside of their userspace after getting unblocked were to engage in an argument with K.e.coffman on an article that LR had not previously edited: [4] [5]

LR then later took up the tactic of responding to K.e.coffman on other talk pages and boards that they had not previously edited, and only when Coffman had asked a question: [6] [7] [8]

Their following of K.e.coffman's edits continued as recently as March and April before this case was filed, the following being direct reverts of K.e.coffman, or edits to pages they had never been before but where K.e.coffman was substantially involved: [9], [10] (originally edited by LR in October, but by Coffman substantially before that), [11]

The following in April also includes articles that were part of LargelyRecyclable's initial harassment round where they tagged articles K.e.coffman was involved with: WWII renactment October tag April revert WWII renactment,October tag Waffen-SS in pop culture, April revert Waffen-SS in pop culture

Finally, I'm not sure where the best section to include this is, but it's worth including, so I'll put it here. This is an account with not many edits in the grand scheme of what normally comes to ArbCom. At the time of this writing, that account had 134 total edits to the Talk: namespace according to xtools. Of those, a full 16% included the string 'Coffman' in the edit summary (22 total). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LargelyRecyclable engaged in personal attacks on arbitration pages during this case

[12] TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LargelyRecyclable was blocked for harassing Bishonen

I'm sure you all are aware, but knowing how cases can be, might as well put it in evidence: [13]. This was for thanking Bish after she asked him not to with which he replied by a thank button, and in context, a snarky reply: [14]. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Pldx1[edit]

This is quite only a conflict about contents

1.The opening sentence of this case is, K.e.coffman speaking: "My op-ed in the Bugle, WP:MILHIST's newsletter, summarises my findings on the subject of Wikipedia's mythmaking when it comes to the German war effort of 1939-45. [1]"

2.User LR appeared on 20 September 2017. His total number of edits is 135. It has been suggested that he could be an avatar of some more involved user... but this has been rebuked. It's hard to figure how these 135 edits were key steps to implement a large pro-Nazi bias, as brushed by K.e.coffman.

4.On the contrary, it seems that we are facing to yet another reductio ad Hitlerum, with the objective of including an ordinary "edit war" into a conspiracy with ulterior motives.

9.In his public tribune[2], K.e.coffman says "nowhere is it more apparent than on English Wikipedia". Nowhere can we see a more Popper-prone assertion!

White-washing is not a recently discovered fact

5.Indeed, large white-washing campaigns have been undertaken in the past, to allow the recycling of the defeated mass-murderers into murderers with our God on their side[3]. MacArthur protecting Hirohito, Churchill protecting Kesselring, and so on were not isolated facts... but describing this situation as orchestrated by Wikipedia is too large a brush... and slightly anachronistic.

7.About Rommel. He was the Hitler's special "not Nazi nor Junker officer", used from the beginning to symbolize and facilitate the rallying of the Reichswehr to the regime. Surely, Rommel was not a direct perpetrator of the Preußenschlag (1932/07/20) nor of the Night of the Long Knives (1934/06/30). But the Goslar parade (1934/09/30) was organized as an assertion of approval. 1934!

Fancruft at milhist

6.As an example, praising a quidam for "successfully conducting a car over the distance from Los Angeles to El Paso" [4] can surely be questioned. Even our porn-star articles aren't going that far. But this can not be brushed as Nazi propaganda, whatever source is used to backup such an irrelevant factoid.

8.About the emphasis put on the Knight's Cross and the various grades. Describing this as Nazi-propaganda is over the top. Look at the Louis Mountbatten article: how many lines about the ribbons ? About being mentioned in the dispatches ?

10.By the way, one can also examine if using Eichenlaub, Schwerter und Brillanten to adorn some chevrons is to be attributed to blatant stupidity (most probable) or to some other reason (largely improbable).

The personal opinion of anyone is not a sufficiently Reliable Source

It seems that some individuals have been recruited by K.e.coffmann to provide their own personal opinion and sustain the K.e.coffmann's point of view in the present content's dispute. This is rather surprising after being so vocal about Reliable Sources. A real expert in the field, speaking ex cathedra, would publish the results of her investigation in a professional, peer reviewed publication in the History field. This would provide one Reliable Source.

Moreover, a panel of experts should be obtained by drawing at random 10 names among a list of hundreds of tenured Professors across the world... This would only change the paradigm here of a crowd sourced encyclopedia.


Pldx1 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Pudeo[edit]

K.e.coffman involvement in an offsite community

I've submitted private evidence about K.e.coffman's involvement in an offsite public "anti-Wehrmacht" community that directly relates to his Wikipedia editing to the ArbCom via email. It included no actual personal details and he had himself publicly acknowledged to being K.e.coffman there.

K.e.coffman's deletionism doesn't have consensus

See this AN/I thread: [15] Besides Dapi89's actions, several editors also found K.e's behavior problematic and many diffs were provided.

K.e's biggest problem with the topic area is that German military articles have "intricate detail" and that a lot of decorated German soldiers should not be notable.

K.e's definition of intricate detail was contested at MilHist in a very long thread.[16]. Here it's catalogued[17] that K.e. redirected 1742 Knight's Cross biographies to a list based on "rough consensus" at WP:BIO [18] that the award alone doesn't guarantee notablity. But a lot of notable soldiers were also redirected because of his industrial scale. He based[19] his later flying ace deletion spree on a MilHist vote that failed to gain consensus [20]. K.e.coffman stated this fact in the message but nevertheless went on with it. I personally reverted Adolf Dickfeld because he was a colonel, commander of II./JG 11, had 136 air victories & KC w/Oak Leaves, for instance.

In November 2017 he attempted[21] to add German military personnel awarded with the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross as an exception to common deletion outcomes. Everyone except him opposed singling out the German award in the !votes.

Gist

K.e.coffman alleges systemic bias in his essay: the average MilHist editor has been too pro-Wehrmacht. I have to especially defend User:MisterBee1966 who has been working like a horse for German military personnel articles. He has a clean block log[22], 600 created articles[23] and hasn't even edit-warred to get the deleted material back. Military hobbyists like him love details like commands held, Wehrmarchbericht mentions, awards etc. It doesn't mean they are pro-Nazi because of that. Please assume good faith.

Compare K.e.coffman's original version of the Rommel myth article [24] to the present one[25]. His own version presents the critical historians' view as the only view whereas the present one also acknowledges that not all historians view it is a pure myth. These are content disputes! I also feel K.e. displays a battleground attitude by compiling a staggering list of disputes on his user page.[26]

Lastly, I disagree with the view that the English Wikipedia is somehow too biased for the German military. There are plenty of articles on American World War II aces with less notable battles and less victories than German pilots. Also there are other editors who write very in-depth articles about WWII British naval personnel and Australian involvement. If K.e.coffman was an ideological pacifist, he'd also clash with all the people writing those articles because of the intricate detail. There is no evidence of actual pro-Nazi POV-pushing like Holocaust denial; indeed the Nazi military history topic area is very calm compared, for example, to the "Polish death camp" controversy that is covered by WP:ARBEE. --Pudeo (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Bishonen[edit]

My encounters with a couple of users, LargelyRecyclable and Cinderella157 (a MILHIST project coordinator) may be relevant to interpersonal relations in the area, specifically as they impact on K.e.coffman. I met LR and Cinderella in November 2017, after K.e.coffman had posted a question on my page about possible socking.[27] The IP edit KEC was concerned about was an attack on KEC and also on Assayer on Talk:Werner Mölders.[28] It seemed inappropriate to me that the attack was still sitting on that page (indeed along with some other attacks on KEC's good faith), so I posted there, and thereby came in contact with the two users.

LargelyRecyclable in November 2017

See this talkpage section. Unfortunately it's a long section, and the relevant discussion comes at the end, so please do a search for the phrase "I was pointed", where it starts. In the course of that discussion, LargelyRecyclable restored the IP's attack on K.e.coffman after it had been removed by a CheckUser, and continued lawyering (IMO) about it. I wouldn't blame anybody for not being aware that CheckUsers won't publicly connect an account and an IP — probably most editors don't know that — but LR insisted on their own position that the nasty anonymous attack on K.e.coffman should be kept public, and went into mansplaining and personalising mode with it, beyond what I thought reasonable. LR's use of policies and wikijargon, including a suggestion that KEC's note to me amounted to adminshopping, seemed both random and aggressive on this occasion.

LargelyRecyclable's conduct during this case

(Added 30 May 2018.) LargelyRecyclable posted this comment to me, which was removed by a clerk as "little more than an attack", with a note on LR's page about the expectations of decorum on arbitration pages.[29] LR has now linked, apparently with pride, to this removed attack in his evidence.[30] Compare also TonyBallioni's (currently) last two sections above. I'm not sure where this high resentment against me comes from, as I don't edit MILHIST topics. I suppose it's possible there was bad blood between LR's previous, secret, account or accounts[31] and myself; I've no way of knowing that. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Cinderella157 November 2017 + April 2018

In the course of posting at Talk:Werner Mölders per above, I also noticed this comprehensive attack on KEC by Cinderella157: "I would observe that K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) clearly has an agenda... The 'excessive zeal' sails close to Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so." Whoah! I complained about these statements on Cinderella's page,[32] hoping for a retraction, but instead got this long reply.

In April 2018, Cinderella posted a comment on the Request page before this case was opened, which ended with links to Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Great Purge and Night of the Long Knives.[33] It's not clear to me what the links refer to. Metaphors for KEC's action in filing the RFAR? Metaphors for what ArbCom would be perpetrating by accepting the RFAR? Or metaphors for something else? Cinderella's explanations in this discussion with TonyBallioni on Cinderella's page don't enlighten me much ("I deliberately did not overtly state my intent. It was a literary device."). But IMO those links to atrocities in the real world are extremely offensive and disproportionate taken as any kind of metaphor or "literary device" in relation to mere disagreements on a website. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A testcase ANI thread: Auntieruth55 has shown strong bias in regard to incivility towards Coffman

(Note: this section and the next were added on 7 June 2018; any mention of others' evidence refers to the way the evidence page looked on that day. Timestamps are UTC.)

Auntieruth55, a MILHIST coordinator, has offered this ANI thread from April 2017 (a proposal of a topic ban of User:Dapi89) as evidence against Coffman. In my opinion it actually casts a poor light on the editing of Auntieruth herself. The ANI thread may serve as a testcase for arbitrators, since three people — Auntieruth, Assayer, and now I — all offer it in evidence: Auntieruth as an example of timewasting and wikilawyering by (presumably) Coffman (?),[34] Assayer as an example of esprit de corps among major contributors associated with the MilHist project,[35], and I as an example of Auntieruth's defense of incivility towards Coffman and her erroneous and unproven claims of incivility and "bickering" by Coffman. Examples for my angle:

I'm confused how those diffs help, too; arbitrators may be interested in clicking on them. In any case, the whole thread, and the contrast between Auntieruth's reading of it versus mine plus Assayer's, may offer illumination. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Auntieruth55 has defended use of unreliable sources

Compare Assayer's section "Dubious, unreliable and primary sources are routinely defended" and see this talkpage thread passim. The thread is a discussion of details and sources that Coffman has removed, or proposes to remove, from WWII bio articles, especially bios of German "flying aces".

Examples:

  • 1. restoration of the article to its Featured Article level of detail
  • 2. restoration of the "mentioned in Wehrmachtbericht" materials."
(For "Wehrmachtbericht", compare our article Wehrmachtbericht and Nick-D's section "Example: Wehrmachtbericht".)

Bishonen | talk 18:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Nick-D[edit]

The historiography on Germany in World War II is evolving

There are significant, and changing, differences in historians' views on the conduct of the German military in World War II. Historians now often focus on the key role of the German military in the Nazi regime's actions and crimes (a topic largely ignored in popular works until the 1980s). Many works once considered reliable have been discredited.

The changing historiography means that Wikipedia articles need to evolve to reflect WP:NPOV. This includes reworking articles. As such, article re-writes, etc, should not be seen as intrinsically problematic. This process has generally been uncontroversial, though there are some tensions. I think that there's scope for some of the involved editors to be more open-minded towards different sources and perspectives.

K.e.coffman has found highly problematic material

I've reviewed most of the examples at User:K.e.coffman#Problematic WWII content, and in almost all cases agree with their judgement on it.

The views of historians they obtained are also concerning.

K.e.coffman's conduct

Example: Wehrmachtbericht

Until recently, many articles included lengthy quotes from the Wehrmachtbericht, a Nazi propaganda broadcast.

LargelyRecyclable continued another editor's harassment and disruption

I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makumbe/Archive regarding LargelyRecyclable soon after they started editing. A checkuser judged that the accounts were unlikely to be connected , and I note ArbCom's similar comments. However, it's concerning that their early edits continued those of another editor who was hostile towards K.e.coffman and the broader agenda of balancing articles, and escalated this matter through tag bombing articles and attacking reliable sources (diffs in the SPI case).

Military History Wikiproject

As a member of this project since 2006, former coordinator of it (and joint lead-coord for a period) and frequent contributor to its A-class reviews, I don't think that the project has a systematic problem with pro-Nazi bias at all.

The fact that Peacemaker67's articles noted below and many other articles covering Nazi war crimes frankly have passed through the project's A-class review process helps demonstrate this. If there was systematic bias, these articles could never have been promoted to A-class, or if the articles themselves were biased they would have failed at WP:FAC.

Two other examples

Examples of problems not being attributable to current editors, and there being no difficulties addressing them (hence no current deeply-seated bias, etc):

Peacemaker67

Evidence presented by power~enwiki[edit]

On the content of military biographies

For articles on less-prominent sportspeople, we often have a very narrow focus on their athletic accomplishments (some arbitrarily-chosen examples include Obed Owusu, Pinky May, Gordon Forbes, Li Junsheng, Uta Poreceanu). Their (presumably-existent) non-sports careers are often not known or mentioned, and there is certainly no discussion of their political views.

Whether or not the articles on military persons should focus purely on statistical information is a content dispute. A dispute at Panzer ace in December involving additions by LargelyRecyclable (diff) was on this basic topic. Several of the names listed have been edited fairly heavily by K.e.coffman; I note Ernst Barkmann as an example involving reduction of content.

When and how to discuss the political views of Nazi soldiers is also a content dispute. Primary sources may be unreliable; I assume that almost all soldiers would have attested to pro-Nazi views during the war, and anti-Nazi views after, regardless of their actual beliefs. Concerns about changing historiography and the reliability of secondary sources have been discussed in other sections better than I can do so.

LargelyRecyclable is a declared WP:CLEANSTART account

Diff by Callanecc stating that ARBCOM has determined that LR had no previous issues involving K.e.coffman or World War II topics.

Evidence presented by Icewhiz[edit]

K.e.coffman‎'s conduct is reasonable

I disagree with KEC quite a bit on many topic areas (and in some - we do agree) - notability standards for WWII is one of those areas we disagree. Following KEC's BOLD redirection of KC recipients to a list, I challenged him on the narrow topic area of aces - undoing several dozen of the redirects (by running down the WWII ace list) - and challenged him to place them at AfD. He did - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke. And it closed Delete (I think I would still !vote Keep, and I think it might close differently today - but it is also fairly clear to me this is borderline notability wise). Following this one AfD - we reached a compromise on what I wouldn't contest - [69]. What I am trying to say - is that while I disagree with KEC on WWII personnel notability - his conduct is reasonable. While he can be focused (not a bad thing) - he also discusses, is civil, and operates within policy guidelines.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by K.e.coffman[edit]

Preliminaries

The case was prompted by the Signpost essay, which I'm linking here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed. I'm presenting evidence that spans 2016–2018 to help identify patterns in this long-running dispute. In addition to LargelyRecyclable, I've mentioned MILHIST coordinators and editors who participated in the RFAR: Auntieruth55, Peacemaker67, Chris troutman, and Cinderella157. I've included Hawkeye7 since he commented on Singpost. LR's whitewashing and harassment campaign took place in an atmosphere of indifference from MILHIST coordinators, and even with their direct participation (e.g. Evidence#Cinderella157). 

My contention is that MILHIST's interpretations of WP:IRS and other WP:PAGs are outside of wider community norms. The project has assumed ownership of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS articles, including biographies and socio-political, cultural, and criminal aspects of these topics. This results in a walled garden, including GA/MilHist A-Class (a grade between GA and FA awarded by consensus)/FA. On source evaluation, I recommend this MILHIST discussion: GA / FA articles (2017).

LR misrepresented sources

I then posted to RSN. LR claimed: "Every academic review of the book I've seen (...) has been adulatory". I offered a review: "larger than life" & "marred by errors". LR accused me of providing a "skewed" picture and described the author as being "on the staff of the University of Washington". My response: "he works there [in] Finance and Administration, not in an academic capacity." 
I was perplexed as to why LR a. wouldn’t disclose the familial relationship; b. insisted reviews were "adulatory" but was unable to provide them; c. continued to defend the source: [71].
I perceived evasion, propensity towards accusations, and a lack of competence in evaluating sources; TP discussion. I was surprised when LR presented the article as a "success in coming to resolution in content disputes" [72]. 
These examples happen in all WW2 bio articles LR made substantive changes to. They show misuse of reliable sources, use of fringe sources, misrepresentations or marshalling non-existent reviews.

LR misinterpreted WP:IRS

LR engaged in harassment

LR canvassed MILHIST

See: WP:Votestacking (added)

LR cast aspersions

Auntieruth canvassed MILHIST coordinators

See: WP:Votestacking

Auntieruth misinterpreted WP:IRS

Peacemaker encouraged MILHIST coordinators to monitor my editing

PM proposed that "all coordinators keep a weather eye out for this behaviour". The sentiment that alleged anti-Nazis were a “problem”(added for clarity) was apparently echoed by others, as none spoke up against this inappropriate and aberrant suggestion. Instead, there was a pile-on concern about “diehard anti-Nazis”: (Thread).
Contrast this with PM’s reservations about me commenting on his FA nomination ("User:K.e.coffmann and I have been at odds for some time") and suggesting my comments were not "entirely in good faith": November 2016.

Peacemaker misinterpreted WP:IRS & NPOV

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay
  2. ^ http://www.smh-hq.org/docs/HQG/GazetteWI18.pdf
  3. ^ With God on Our Side
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2018-04-26%2FOp-ed&type=revision&diff=838862161&oldid=838712166
  5. ^ Stimmen zum Buch "Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945" von Veit Scherzer
  6. ^ Scherzer 2007, cover
Side note: by the time Seidler made these comments, he'd been long retired from the university and was best known for publishing revisionist texts with extremist presses. See also revert on Seidler’s own page: [80].

Peacemaker cast aspersions

Hawkeye misinterpreted WP:IRS

3rd party editor: Would you care to enlighten me why you think, Neo-Nazi publications (e.g. Range, Kurowksi, Schaulen) are needed in WWII articles?
Hawkeye7: Mass changes require an RfC. (...) Take it to WP:MILHIST.
K.e.coffman: If these sources were used for citations, would an RfC be required to remove these sources and citations?
Hawkeye7: Not if it was done individually, and the source was replaced with another.
K.e.coffman: What if a neo-Nazi source was the only one available, such as Franz Kurowski at Otto Kittel article?
Hawkeye7: They must have used some source. Replace with their original source.

I.e., if editors wanted to remove such sources, they should procure them to determine original sources these (neo-Nazi) publications used. He referred to MILHIST as apparently the final arbiter on such sources.

Chris troutman personalised disputes

Cinderella’s personal attacks

Cinderella misinterpreted IRS & OR

Diffs are from June 2017, focused on The Blond Knight of Germany, the main source for an A-class article. Sub-thread at WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 140#Erich Hartmann:

It seems as if the burden of proof is routinely reversed. If a source is dubious because its author, its publisher or both have a reputation for historical distortions, [it’s] unreasonable to be asked for sources which question specific dubious claims (...) The whole situation becomes Kafkaesque, when any attempt to demonstrate how exceptional certain claims are, is struck down as "original research" with reference to WP:SYNTH.

Project ownership led to walled garden

Auntieruth suggested during RFAR that she "served predominantly as copy editor/grammarian" [91] in MILHIST peer-reviewed articles. Likewise, Peacemaker stated: "much of [the mistakes] has happened at GAN which is not a Milhist process at all" [92]. Sample list, with relevant TP discussions: 

Editing peer-reviewed articles is objected to, citing consensus or being out of process. In an example of ownership behaviour, Auntieruth reverts to an article version from 12 months ago [93], while instructing me to "not make massive rewrites or deletions without discussion first!" [94]; full thread. She also preemptively requests page protection, because I'm being "disruptive" [95] (added 8/6/2018).

Peacemaker strongly defends a page that looks like a mini-version of my user page: "Tanks must be led from the front!"; "rose to fame";[according to whom?] joined the Nazi Party, but strictly for reasons of civic duty; see: GAR. A non-affiliated editor comments: 

Questionable and fringe sources are accepted

Contrary to project MOS guidance (WP:MILMOS#SOURCES), such sources are accepted. Editors questioning them are routinely asked to present evidence disproving specific statements; see #Hawkeye misinterpreted WP:IRS. By this logic, the most obscure sources are the most reliable, since nobody had anything to say about them. Source evaluation is dismissed as "WP:OR".

Peacemaker at RFAR: "Those mistakes [in accepting unsuitable sources] do not justify tag-bombing and butchering perfectly good articles..." [96]. Can you have "dubious and entirely laudatory sources" in "perfectly good" articles? No, IMO. Separately, MILHIST members do "disagree" that sources are dubious: 

My edit [98] (in AR's evidence): “Trivia cited to a neo-Nazi publication”, which was reverted. The edit resulted a TP discussion: Neo-Nazi publication and a NPOVN thread Fringe source, where AR suggested that this was " part of a larger 'crusade'" to "discredit these previously approved articles!" Common sense suggests that neo-Nazi publications can be removed despite existing project consensus. Auntieruth called it evidence of “Repeated deletions of legitimate information without discussion”.

Apologetics

Whether consciously or unconsciously, the practices outlined above led to a non-neutral portrayal of articles' subjects:

Hoepner framed the theater as an ideological war, telling his troops that it was the final stage in a long standing struggle in defense of the German people, and a necessary bulwark against Jewish Bolshevism.
For more "rehabilitation" targets, see: User:LargelyRecyclable/dashboard. The interpretations chosen by LR present Wehrmacht personnel in the best possible light: they are in "outright defiance" of Hitler's regime, behave chivalrously, file "official protests", and so on.
In both Hoepner and Leeb, I find that the insertion of war crime allegations (regardless of accuracy) disrupts the chronicle.
This is both factually incorrect and historically ignorant. War crimes mentions are not "allegations" nor "inaccurate" once the subject is convicted (Leeb) or when documentary evidence of such crimes exists (in both cases). These were senior commanders in a war of conquest and racial annihilation. Complaining about war crimes “disrupt[ing] the chronicle” betrays a dated / hobbyist POV that seeks to compartmentalise and minimise unpalatable aspects of military history, just as the 'clean Wehrmacht' proponents did in the 1950s.

(Added 13/06/2018)

MILHIST on PAGs & purpose of Wikipedia

Some observations:

Dealing with the latter necessitated discussions across various venues & over time. Removing verbatim Nazi propaganda shouldn’t be that controversial. Yet Auntieruth "strongly objected", even voting twice in a deletion discussion: [118] & [119].

Advocacy

(Added 10/6/2018)

The parties describe me as a "POV pushers", although my "agenda" remains somewhat unclear, apart from being "anti-German" and "anti-military" which "undermines NPOV":

Ergo, creating articles on award recipients on an industrial scale (2500+ nn pages between just two contributors), inserting verbatim Wehrmacht press releases, and focusing on "military enthusiast details" (Pudeo’s language) are not "POV pushing" to advance a pro-military "agenda". Furthermore, they improve "NPOV". This is a double standard that betrays WP:ADVOCATE mentality.   

Wikipedians: "historians" or "editors"?

(Added 10/6/2018)

I observe arguments from authority that some MILHIST contributors are professional historians. It's further posited that unreliable/primary sources are valuable to Wikipedians: 

Another common theme is don’t "throw out the baby with the bath water" (October 2016), just because the "bathwater is dirty and the baby happens to still be in the basin. Assessment of sources is a fundamental problem for historians" (June 2017). "Historians" again; also: " researchers" and "military historians" (see: Military Historian of the Year award).

Nonetheless, Auntieruth advocates lowering our standards, by using obscure authors from WP:WS presses: "I don't believe we should insist on an excessive level of scholarship" [127].

Is there systemic bias?

(Added 10/6/2018)

Perhaps not outright Nazi-bias, but merely avoiding "actual pro-Nazi POV-pushing like Holocaust denial" [128] is an extremely low bar :). Input from people invoking higher standards shouldn't be rejected. See the 2013 discussion on the neo-Nazi Heroes of the Wehrmacht: 

I agree with Nick-D that most WW2 articles either don’t display bias, or it was inserted by IPs/drive-by editors. Indeed, I’ve seen concerted efforts to whitewash Wehrmacht generals only from LargelyRecyclable. But when non-affiliated editors call some MILHIST peer-reviewed articles "Nazi WP:FANCRUFT", "Kurowski-ed" (after pulpy Franz Kurowski); or "absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda", I’d take these concerns seriously.

Suitable essay on identifying reliable sources in history already exists: [131]. Given that the topic area is controversial and these debates predate me, I would suggest that we aspire to use the essay, especially the WP:HSC section. It does not preclude non-academic sources, but makes it easier to agree on sources that are likely to be reliable.  K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebuttals (Pudeo/Auntieruth/Peacemaker/LR)

(Updated 7 June)

  1. Pudeo's section "K.e.coffman's deletionism doesn't have consensus" contains a mistaken assumption. The redirects were pursuant to Redirect proposal, widely commented on and formally closed; WP:SOLDIER was modified accordingly: [132]. See also Current consensus where Auntieruth55 chose not to respond. Statements re: “rough consensus” not being what Auntieruth understands it to be are attempts to reargue a closed discussion.
  2. A quotation ([Coffman] insist that everything is cited to a specific set of "pure" sources…) in Auntieruth’s section "Purity of sources" is either invention or scare quotes.
  3. Peacemaker67's "Cherry-picking and monitoring" suggests that encouraging MILHIST to monitor my editing was entirely appropriate and provides examples from MILHIST/Coordinators about: 37.193.25.42; [a troll]; and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool. None were registered accounts in good standing. Peacemaker apparently equates me with vandals/trolls/socks and affirms: I stand by my actions. Side note: The pejorative “hard line anti-Nazi” has not been explained; compare with “hard line anti-genocide”.
  4. Both LR and Auntieruth don’t consider notifications to @MILHIST (~15 coordinators) or WT:MILHIST to be canvassing. See: WP:Votestacking.
  5. LR’s section “Wehrmachtbericht is a legitimate primary source” contains either a misrepresentation or scare quotes: He's made accusations [about a] spread of "Neo-Nazi propaganda," a serious charge…. I used "verbatim Nazi propaganda", which the Wehrmachtbericht was; sample: “Destroyed 1754 tanks” & “Won a full defensive victory”!. In any case, Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY of primary documents.

"Details"

(Added 13/06/2018)

I did not see any of the MILHIST coordinators stepping in with "calm voices" to interrupt this inappropriate disparaging of alleged anti-Nazis. In any case, comparing Wikipedia editing with "Nazi-hunting" and "book burning" is entirely out of proportion, but such epithets appears to be par for the course from MILHIST coords themselves; compare with Cinderella's Night of the Long Knives and yet more of book burning.

Addendum: Historians' statements

Note: ArbCom confirmed their authenticity here.

Evidence presented by Auntieruth[edit]

Never having participated at Arbitration before, I may have included things that should be discussed later. I apologize in advance. Just let me know! auntieruth (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated deletions of legitimate information without discussion

This happened in several articles. Hans-Ulrich Rudel is one example. On this edit: Coffman had argued that Obermaier and Just are unreliable sources, yet the German historian Sönke Neitzel based his entry in the Neue Deutsche Biographie [135] on Just. In addition, the deletion justification ignored information previously based on the research of Matthews and Foreman, who had analyzed material found in the Federal Archives. All info based on Matthews and Foreman was removed in the deletion as well. The result of this deletion gives undue weight to Rudel’s post-war activities, which Coffman classified as a “Nazi activist” , rather than contextualizing Rudel's post-war activities with his wartime activities. This occurred repeatedly, despite several attempts to point out that there was no consensus on deleting the information, the latest being Rudel consensus (I think...but I'm not good at finding diffs) Efforts to reestablish the article at its consensus status here are discussed at length here, and on the talk page here

Regular deletion of contextualization, background is identified as unnecessary and "intricate" detail.

On an FA Werner Mölders....(which still has one of the tags he placed on it)

Sometimes the "trivia hunt" by-passed FAR processes

Coffmann is very good at his edit summaries. They are quite detailed, such as this one. Kudos to him. However, he consistently ignores group consensus about content, sources, POV and removes detail that would be normally included in any reasonable biography. I'll look up the links in the next couple of days. For example:


Coffman excess tagging tagging tagging

assumptions about "rough consensus

Coffman misleads with the differences he uses

I can attach scans of the source for your reference, in German, but I need instruction on how to do it. The deletion of this information retains a POV in the article which can give the readers the impression that a named reference was fiction, which it is not.

distortion of comments

unfounded accusations of canvasing

sources and context

(updated 5/28/18)

First: Purity of sources. A couple of editors, particularly Assayer (talk · contribs) and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), insist that everything is cited to a specific set of "pure" sources that they have identified.In a recent article listed for assessment, I asked Coffman for additional information on background/context of an article before it was raised to B class. see HERE. While I understand (but do not always accept) Coffman's abhorrence to anything related to Schiffer (see I would not use Schiffer Publishing for anything relating to the German security operations in occupied Europe), there are many other sources that would broaden the perspective of this particular article. I'm not convinced that looking for sources that deal specifically and only with a given event is helpful in contextualizing the horrors of WWII and German operations in Central/Eastern Europe, particularly in the General Government.
Second: Context is a way of understand the purification of Eastern Europe. By refusing to use monographs that offer a wider view of the situation, or even other sources that deal with events similar to this particular operation, the article has no wider context. See here It is simply one event, not connecting one event to a trend of Germanization. I tried to direct him to several other books that would offer a wider view than simply the one source he used, which he categorically refused. Instead, he preferred to rely on one source to document the article, and to limit the article to its barest bones. There is no context of the operation, no sense of how and why it happened in the broader Nazi operation. It sounds to me more like a book report than an article.
Third: Generally, I see this dispute as, first, a sourcing dispute, complicated by personal styles of communication. We have, obviously, a conflict between the kinds of secondary sources acceptable. Librarians identify the distinction between scholarly, trade, and popular sources. Second, we also have a dispute over the level of detail appropriate to an article.

Evidence presented by Drmies[edit]

I will focus on one article: Panzer ace.

K.e.coffman in behavior and content

I know Coffman best from Panzer ace where I came to know them as a conscientious editor with a good sense of policy--it seems to me they're academically trained and can tell a good source from a bad: much of their work seems to get an initial impulse from neutrality concerns but is then guided by the proper use of reliable sources. Thus, they get into editing disputes like here; see Talk:Panzer ace/Archive 4 for a discussion of the sourcing problem. That particular problem (whether a former military person who runs a tank museum should be called a reliable source on a seriously difficult historiographical matter) was still not solved a few months ago, with User:Deathlibrarian continuing the refusal to accept that that amateur historian is just not an RS (certainly not for historiographical information) and being unable to produce cogent arguments.

Throughout those discussions Coffman maintained decorum and a professional tone, even when confronted with such poorly-founded stubbornness, a trait I admire. This dispute went on for quite a while; had it not been for the assistance of Nick-D, we might still have an article that was essentially a list of glorified German tank commanders (here is a portrait gallery of famous Nazi commanders, and here is the version with the cute Nazi flags). Yet Coffman was as professional as could be, not edit warring, continuing to seek the talk page, without being insulting or condescending. I don't like to exaggerate but they've shown the patience of a saint.

What K.e.coffman is up against

The pushback is great and endemic. Panzer ace was visited by drive-by SPAs (PanzerSkad (talk · contribs), Kindleberger (talk · contribs), Milhosz (talk · contribs), Duskinvo (talk · contribs), Kubovsky (talk · contribs), Mrserge70 (talk · contribs), likely socks, possibly of HansZwiller (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock. The work of Deathlibrarian consisted mostly of undoing Coffman's work and adding/expanding/Naziflagifying the list of heroes. As for LargelyRecyclable, this edit demonstrates LR's poor grasp of policy and their different means of disruption; "ad hominem" refers to Nick-D's socking accusation (LR was blocked for a Cleanstart violation). In that massive revert you can see how disruptive they are. Scroll down the edit with me:

So in one edit we have POV tag bombing, removal of claims qualifying the status of revisionist historians, casting doubt on reliable sources, removal of language that tars the reputation of "the hero of all Nazi fan-boys", etc. This, including the lengthy edit warring, is symptomatic for the problems here. Search for "Smelse" on the talk page and see this belligerent and nonsensical comment by Makumbe (talk · contribs), who discredits Smelse and Davies (again, their book The Myth of the Eastern Front is an RS)--Makumbe calls them "neocon propagandists who have ridden a wave" and sneers that one of the two is a sociologist, which already warrants a topic ban for WW2 articles: "There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis", and in this edit they're pissing on an expert like Sönke Neitzel. We saw this in the gun case too: much disruption comes from editors not recognizing reliable sources, out of incompetence, ignorance, or willfulness. As for LR, if you want just one, try this--with thanks to Nick-D and Google Books. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Cinderella157[edit]

{Work in progress}

Preface

I agree with KEC that there are issues with GWE articles that can and should be improved. I also acknowledge their significant contribution. However, KEC appears to have a POV which is perhaps as reactionary as the revisionist POV they oppose. However, how they go about achieving their aims is more to the issue. Making this case appears typical of KEC's confrontational manner. Quoting from WP:NPOVFAQ: "one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar".

Allegation of personal attack against KEC at Talk:Werner Mölders Revision as of 02:56, 11 November 2017by KEC and Bishonen

This evidence is both rebuttal and made in part to substantiate comments made in the request phase of this case.

I rarely edit in GWE articles.[1] I have had little direct interaction with KEC.[2] However, it is difficult for anyone at MilHist not to be aware of the commotion associated with KEC.

This case, the Singpost article and KEC's user page are clear evidence that KEC has an agenda. There is a reasonably apparent pattern to their editing in pursuit of this agenda that involves: "banner bombing"; parsing on the claim of relevance, unnecessary detail or "reliability of sources". The aim appears to be to significantly reduce or even delete GWE bios in particular. Many bios have been redirected to list articles in consequence. It appears that KEC equates WP article size with it being laudatory and that only the sinister aspects of a subject should be given significant space.

Nick-D has observed that KEC ""can be over-zealous" and that they "needlessly got some editors off side" because of their approach to German fighter aces.[136] I would observe that herein lies the crux of many of the complaints and allegations that KEC has made.

As to the three linked essays in the subject post (WP:TROLL, WP:LAWYER and WP:POV warrior)[3], I considered them very closely. I concluded behaviours that could be attributed to KEC[4] I noted what is not trolling and that the difference lies in good or bad faith. I also noted the difficulty WP has with enforcement. I concluded that KEC was Troll like but probably not a Troll and even if they are, there is probably nothing anybody can do. In hindsight, WP:CPUSH appears to be more appropriate.

Taking this onboard, my intent was to raise the appearance of their conduct: that it sail[s] close to does not mean it is; and, that it is perhaps indistinguishably so is, that it appears very much the same (but not is the same). It was very much my intent not to make my statement an accusation but a statement of "appearance" that might give KEC cause to consider.

My observation is that pursuit of this agenda is disruptive to the project and WP more generally and that the detriment to both far exceeds any value to either by this ongoing pursuit.

This is clearly my observation and how this appears to me. I point to User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour where they appear to take pride in negative way other editors perceive them.[5] I would quote the cliche: It takes two to tango. It is difficult to comprehend that KEC's conduct has been beyond reproach given the breadth and depth of the allegations made on that page. Such passing quotes also lack context. That page evidences that there has been disruption to WP in consequence of their edits and that they are reasonably aware that how they go about doing things is likely to have such effects. That they continue to go about things in the same way begs the question as to whether the means justifies the ends and whether, knowing the likely outcomes of how they proceed, they are indeed acting in good faith.

While it was not my intent to make the subject post as an allegation, I believe that I havee been able to substantiate apparent problematic behaviours such that this falls outside being a personal attack. I note that raising this allegation at this time appears disingenuous and opportunistic.

Pattern

banner bombing: Here, KEC has added three tags as {Multiple issues}. Also here and then here, as separate banners.

Creuzbourg had placed three tags here. This was reverted in the next edit, with the comment: If you want to tag an article like this you should be prepared to point out specific concerns on the talk page. In the next edit, KEC reinstated the tags, with the comment: Restore tags; pls see Talk:Werner_Mölders#Tags - assuming responsibility for the tagging.

I have made an analysis of KEC's edits to articles.[6] It indicates an estimate in the order of 1,400 articles within the scope of this case have been tagged by KEC.[7] KEC has applied multiple banner tags to over 50 articles.[8]

parsing: Analysing KEC's edits since they joind WP, their net contribution has been to remove 2,1244,429 B from articles. Nearly 70% of edits to articles have reduced the net size of the article edited.[9]

on claim of unnecessary detail: in the order of 3000 edits have cited "detail" (ie intricate detail) to reduce article content.
on claim of "reliability of sources": In the order of 5,000 edits have reduced article content on the basis of questioning the reliability of sources. KEC tends to paint sources with a broad brush on the basis of author and/or publisher. It does not consider the individual source or the particular material being sourced and whether it is material which is "reasonably" likely to be challenged. KEC has directly or inferred WP:BURDEN but the counterpoint is WP:BLUE.[10] This is the essence of many discussions that have been linked in this cases as evidence. MilHist has an internal interpretation of verifiability that requires every paragraph of the body of an article to be sourced with a citation. KEC appears to have used this as justification for significant deletions, regardless of the material in question - eg, the place or date of birth. In many respects, this appears to go against the fifth pillar.

Deletion (including moving to list articles): KEC has deleted a large number of articles with redirects to list articles.[11] See some article lists [137][138]

Discussion at MilHist on detail

This discussion in June 2017 at MilHist was initiated in the course of the thread at Mölders. While long, it deals with a number of issues, particularly "detail". It should be informative. KEC has referred to this discussion as an allegation against AuntieRuth stating it should have been conducted at another venue. Moving this discussion was discussed at Talk:Werner Mölders.[139][140][141] KEC was a willing participant. The discussion was clearly not intended to be closed to MilHist only. KEC made no objection (that I can see) at the time. Their allegation against AuntieRuth lacks this fuller context. It appears to be disingenuous and improper. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments/views regarding KEC and their editing

Added Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV pushing by KEC

The matter of POV pushing by KEC is ecplicitly within scope of this case. I see WP:CPUSH to be particularly relevant. It notes the difficulty of identifying and dealing with such cases. It particularly notes "long-term behavior that cannot accurately be summarized in a few diffs". Consequently, I have made a case study of a set of KEC's edits with respect to these long-term issues. My evidence has also referred to specific observations from this study. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misrepresentations and personal attack by MastCell

During the request phase of this case @MastCell posted allegations regarding my actions at Talk:World War II reenactment[144] I have detailed why the post by MastCell is a gross misrepresentation of events and statements.[145]. The allegations made by MastCell cannot be substantiated to the extent that they are a misrepresentation. I consider their actions (including an allegation of tag-teaming) to be an unsubstantiated personal attack. MastCell also misrepresented this statement by me on the request page.[146] @User:The ed17 makes a similar observation of MastCell selectively quoting [and thereby misrepresenting] @Peacemaker67.[147] Pinging @User:Auntieruth55. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some rebuttal

To KEC's general allegations per WP:IRS, WP:OR and like

Such allegations made by KEC appear somewhat of a conundrum, if not a contradiction since, by their words, their determination of what is, or isn't a reliable source is analysis. There is also the matter of scholarly sources addressed at the same link, which are essentially a case for a particular author's opinion, made by analysis of source material and other opinions. The superiority of scholarly sources must therefore be made with a rider that distinguishes fact from opinion; that utilises facts and gives due weight to opinion. This is an essential requirement of writing for WP implicit in the policy of NPOV. The basis of KEC's allegations in these respects are not as black and white with respect to policy and guidelines as they would portray, particularly when you throw the fifth pillar into the works.

The second observation I would make is that KEC appears to be more interested in standing on the letter of policy and guidelines in respect to sources and deleting material derived from what they asses as WP:QS than working collaboratively, without confrontation and disruption without simply deleting chunks of material. The second option takes more time and probably more effort (at least initially) but fosters collegiality, which, inturn, will lead to greater acceptance of proposed changes. I see many places where WP notes (with some few exceptions) that speed is not of the essence and can be counter-productive. WP is not the place to right great wrongs overnight. It is the place to correct and improve the quality of articles and the project overall. My observation is that KEC has valid points and concerns but how they go about things steps past one and into the other.Cinderella157 (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allegations against Hawkeye7 - misinterpreted WP:IRS

The origins of this appear to go to what is at most a difference of opinion now almost two years old, where Hawkeye stated that mass changes require an RFC. Perhaps not, but the degree of consensus should be consistent with the scope and significance of changes made (IMO). Then KEC took this up at Hawkeye's talk page. They then appear to rekindle this at the Bugle and then the Singpost talk pages. The relationship is establish by KEC's evidence. The age of the earliest of these allegations compared with the others gives this the appearance of a vendetta - particularly as it appears relatively trivial.

It is more than reasonable to conclude that KEC's intent to make this case was formed by the time of the Bugle and subsequent Signpost articles. It is apparent that KEC has lead these discussions to the point of badgering with the intent of garnering evidence. I find such conduct highly questionable.


References

  1. ^ Copy editing Hermann Graf is the only significant contribution I can recall.
  2. ^ I have a spreadsheet of our interactions which identifies eleven posts where I have commented in threads that KEC has also posted to and a further four where I have posted to a "relevant" thread.
  3. ^ WP:POV warrior is essentially a redirect to WP:SPA
  4. ^ Eg: insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit; unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others; editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda.
  5. ^ I do not excuse the comments there that surpass the boundaries of civility or fall to personal attacks by the involved parties.
  6. ^ Spreadsheet can be provided. Logical tests were made to generate a set of edits with "tag" in the edit summary. These tests eliminated "rm tag" from the set and SpecialTags appended by WPA. visual examination will indicate that a large prop are relevant to this case.
  7. ^ See spreadsheet for detail of process. Looking for instances of "tags" in edit summaries that were relevant to the case, were not special:tags or not the apparent removal of a tag, produced a proportionality. This was then used to estimate the number of "relevant" taggings from the set of article comments containing "tag
  8. ^ That is, two or more banner tags added in edit summaries to an article which may or may not be grouped under a "multiple issues" banner but generally added as "pairs", noting that many articles have been subsumed into list articles.
  9. ^ Up to 20 May 2018. From spreadsheet
  10. ^ This link is particularly relevant. In the first instance, I would quote from the lead: "However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several mild forms of disruptive editing which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied but Wiki-history shows this is unrealistic."
  11. ^ The spreadsheed returns 3052 for "redirect" and 2736 for "#redirect" across all article edits

Evidence presented by Assayer[edit]

No "pro-Nazi POV-pushing", but problematic POV nonetheless

The POV in question romanticizes military history by emphazising military professionalism, achievements and success while neglecting historical context. It can be found in many articles covering topics of military history of all times and nations. But it becomes particularly problematic in articles dealing with the German war effort in WW II, because then it feeds well into the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” or even the “clean Waffen-SS”.

For example, I have put some effort into criticism of the term “ace”. See AfD German tank aces [148], AfD Submarine ace[149] and the ongoing, bulky debate Panzer ace, see Edit break 2 in particular. [150]. One may or may not agree with my conclusions concerning notability. It should be clear, however, that there is a significant body of RS which analyze the positive judgements conveyed by the term “ace” in military contexts.[151] Thus such a term should not be used in Wikipedia altogether except within quotations and/or attribution.

Instead, English Wikipedia not only hosts articles about “Luftwaffe flying aces of World War II“ like [152], but also boasts their “extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership”. To remove these kinds of peacock words[153] turned out to be difficult.[154], and has once been described as “potentially controversial”, so I sought consensus.[155]. The extreme bravery of German soldiers is still maintained in Wikipedia, because it is alleged that “aces” with a certain amount of kills are notable.[156], [157], and so forth. As I have argued at AfD Fritz Lüddecke[158], [159] it is not the number of kills that matters, but the coverage in reliable sources.

Dubious, unreliable and primary sources are routinely defended

The sourcing is crucial. Two different types of sources merit attention. First, there is a sizable body of literature written by non-academics and published outside historiographical discourse, respectively. The reliability of such source becomes more difficult to assess, the less noteworthy these sources are, because then there are often virtually no sources to supply criticism or contextualization. When I showed that a particular source made extraordinary claims, that was called WP:SYNTH. [160]. Matters were also discussed at RS Noticeboard.[161]

Another attempt to rescue a certain source by calling a comparison between published sources OR was indeed undertaken by Peacemaker67.[162] In contrast to his account below[163], see my seminal statement[164], where I suggested that a particular source (Bergel 1972) was less reliable (i.e. "mistaken") than others for certain information. I did not suggest a wholesale removal, however, but asked for explanation. So far the controversial information (shot by Soviets) has not even been attributed to its source.[165]updated --Assayer (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I discussed the problems further [166] The whole discussion can be found at [167] It captures much of my concerns with the ways editors deal with sources.

Memoirs are often being used, although they are both primary sources and notoriously unreliable. Memoirs of German Wehrmacht generals are a major source of the clean Wehrmacht myth. The Battle for Moscow reached FA status in 2006[168] while it was significantly based upon Guderian’s memoirs (and Zhukov’s, which I do not condone, either, all the more since a 1971 edition has undergone Soviet censorship). Guderian's POV is featured here.[169] Since then the bibliography has greatly improved, but Guderian’s POV is still there.[170] I have tried to outline Guderian’s POV here.[171]

The disputed[172] unreliability the Wehrmachtbericht as a source may be demonstrated by [173] According to the Wehrmachtbericht a destroyer was sunk. The article still claims that.[174] The battle has been described from the Allied perspective at Exercise Tiger[175]. No destroyer has been sunk. At least since 11 May 2014 the creator of the Mirbach article was aware of that.[176] [177]

I objected that a self-published work was described on the grounds of its author/publishers's advertising,[178], see reaction and discussion, respectively [179] [180]. Alas, advertising seemed ok, criticism needed reviews.[181] (Please note, that Peacemaker67 chose to respond about six days after I adressed them directly, but within minutes after closure[182], thereby ensuring to have the last word.) I further do not see how sources with a bias could be legitimated by the fact that a historian refers to them, because historians frequently make use of dubious sources. auntieruth has asked, why it is a problem that some works were sponsored by the Federal Archives, probably based on this argument[183] Well, because those works were not ‘’sponsored’’ by the German Federal Archives.[184]updated. --Assayer (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes researching primary records is legitimated for so called “uncontroversial” information. I remember very well [185] leading to the creation of Service record of Karl Wolff[186]. My rationale was this[187] Among other things I was told that SS service records were easily available at the National Archives.[188] When the same editor was confronted in Talk:Theodor Eicke#Removal of dates of rank and awards[189] that the dates he gave for promotions differed from dates given in publications by historians[190] [191] it turned out that access was not that easy.[192]

A major line of argument is, that for an article on a military person to be comprehensive, the military career has to be presented in minute detail.(argument, [193], restored, defended).Since academic historians seldom work on those subjects, so the argument goes, Wikipedia editors have to rely on their own judgement[194] and it is suggested that they themselves seperate the facts from the bias.[195][196] (updated --Assayer (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)) It is argued "not to set the bar abnormally high."[197][198][199] (updated. --Assayer (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Historical context is neglected

Take Ernst Lindemann,[200],e.g., which is mainly based upon a biography by Jens Grützner who (according to the book cover) studied history without graduating. Grützner works for Nestlé and became a supporting member of the Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger (OdR) in 1999, the same year the German Ministry of Defence cut all ties to the OdR because of its revanchism. No reference is made to Holger Afflerbach's essay on the last battle of the Bismarck (2001), available online (PDF), as the most famous example of a refusal to surrender. Why did Lindemann and his superior Lütjens, Afflerbach asks, engage in a fight they could not possibly win (pp. 608-10)? Even eye witness Burkard Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg asked, why the increasingly horrifying and hopeless slaughter was not ended by surrender. Wikipedia emphasizes awards, Raeder’s comradeship and emotional support.

For illustration: These are articles on German generals in their "pre-Coffman"-versions from 2016: Ernst Busch, Adolf Strauß, Ewald von Kleist, Eugen von Schobert, Eduard Dietl. The emphasis on awards and the references, much of it in German, may speak for themselves. No reference is made, e.g., to Johannes Hürter's Hitlers Heerführer (2006), a collective biography dealing with the named generals and others.(review H-German) inserted. --Assayer (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of the problem may be the MilHist Guideline [201], which encourages overly detailed career summaries, but is weak on political context and may be only local consensus.updated. --Assayer (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

esprit des corps

Major contributors associated with the MilHist project exhibit a remarkable degree of esprit de corps even when it comes to blatant incivility. My impression was this.[202] --Assayer (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by LargelyRecyclable[edit]

Context

After being away as an editor for about a year, I was looking up the publishing history of a book I own. The first result was the corresponding Wikipedia article. When I clicked on the link what I found was this. I was horrified. I didn't understand how Wikipedia's article on a seminal account of the war had been reduced to a hit piece. This is a book that is widely disseminated across professional military reading lists for both senior enlisted and commissioned officers in militaries around the world. It's literally required reading for Armor officers the world over. The book and its author where substantial influences in the post-war reconstruction of European militaries and were substantial influences on the strategic planning of NATO against Warsaw Pact nations. I was totally bewildered. MILHIST had always been diligent in its curation. So, I pulled up the edit history. What I found plunged me down the rabbit hole of a multi-year campaign by K.e.coffman to "right the record" on Wikipedia. I broke a promise to myself and came back to the project.

Being an experienced editor, it didn't take long for me to find other editors who had objected to coffman's campaign. It also didn't take long to find his off-wiki activities, where he coordinated editing with other editors and gloated about the successful pushing of his POV(Email #1). Ironically, the mocking of others over the rewrite of the Panzer Battles article was his first salvo(email #2), to be continued to other subjects across the project. Corresponding evidence cannot be presented in public, for the community, per the guidance of the ArbCom. So, I will attempt to correlate redacted evidence as efficiently as possible, for both the ArbCom and the Wikipedia community at large. What I can say is that I archived the off-wiki material almost a year ago. It demonstrates not only coffman's complicity in explicitly disallowed behavior, but also his subsequent attempt to cover it up, knowing his guilt.

I'll try to, as concisely as possible, demonstrate that coffman's history of editing over the past few years is almost entirely dedicated to the goal of furthering his POV, and was undertaken in bad faith, to include the harassment and denigration of editors in good standing. This campaign includes an intentional gaming of the system, and a commitment to isolating and driving off editors who resisted his efforts.

I don't know why coffman chose to undertake this campaign. His efforts focus on discriminatory edits against Germans and favoritism toward Soviets. Whether or not the fact that he grew up in the Soviet Union himself lends to this or not I don't know. What is clear is that his account was created to engage in tendentious editing, in order to "right a great wrong" and push a POV. This doesn't mean that coffman is a bad person. It doesn't mean he lacks competence. I still, even now, believe that he's an intelligent and capable person, more than able to be productive. Coffman's transgression isn't malice, it's hubris.

Assertions

The historiography of WWII is evolving and coffamn has found issues[203]

Yes. Yes! YES! Historiography is always evolving. Coffman has found sub-par sourcing. I applaud coffman's work across some of the project. The very first personal interaction coffman and I had was him posting on my talk page about the unsuitability of Franz Kurowski and my subsequent support for that source's general disenfranchisement. While the lack of adequate sourcing can be isolated, it's not unique to WWII. We can and should do better, especially in instances where there is controversial material to be covered.

Coffman is happy to bear witness against himself

Coffman's user page is a showcase of battleground behavior, aggression, harassment, and grave dancing.

  1. "For fun, I turned "American bombing raids" into "American operations over Germany". In Jagdgeschwader 3.
  2. From the same article: "to bomb" into "to attack" & more. Somebody has to stand up for "victor's justice" :-) (For context, "victor's justice", in addition to its usual meaning, is a frequent meme on the anti-German website that coffman was an active member of, and used in conjunction with his POV pushing on Wikipedia. This is, in effect, signaling to other Wikipedia editors and readers who are members of this anti-German group. The site was submitted privately to ArbCom.
  1. "So Nick-D have totally embraced K.e.coffman..." :-)
  2. "Personal attacks for 'antifascist reputation' by user: Stonedtower"
  3. Fan mail: +1
  4. translations or country name?
  5. 100% unadulterated Nazi propaganda (aka Wehrmachtbericht): recent developments
  6. "Nazi-hunter": +
  7. new section: "McCarthyism" (part of an extensive tiraid against Peacemaker67, where he mockingly awards him "points".
  8. Special mention: "Book burning": 10 points (a small piece of the extensive harassment of MisterBee1966, who also gets points)
  9. + Down with "de WP"! (another purposeful misrepresentation of Peacemaker67)
  10. 5 + bonus (again)
  11. more (and again)
  12. "Not dropping the stick" / "Campaigning" / "Forum shopping": + "canvassing" (one of many against Dapi89)
  13. double + single (with bonus) (an attack and misquote of Peacemaker67)
  1. Here he "awards himself" what he calls a "Vandal's Cross of the Iron Cross" in condescension of editing awards given at MILHIST, and which was a running joke on the anti-German website used to coordinate editing, previously submitted. He also uses the opportunity to again mock MisterBee1966.
  2. And the Deletionist's Cross of the Iron Cross including more "call out" antagonism.

Wehrmachtbericht is a legitimate primary source

Coffman has denounced and attacked other editors for their use of Wehrmachtbericht. He's made accusations that the use of such sources constitutes an unthinking, or even worse, knowing, spread of "Neo-Nazi propaganda," a serious charge to make against another, one that veers well into the realm of Personal Attack. It speaks to his battle ground mentality and a propensity to demonize editors who disagree with him. The term "propaganda" was, until after the Second World War, a neutral term. Many countries have had Ministries or Departments for Propaganda. It didn't take on a universally pejorative meaning until after the war. I find it hard to believe Coffman doesn't know this. The Wehrmachtbericht is, like any official release by any nation in the war, a primary source. As such, it should be treated with all due caution, but not categorically disallowed. There are many instances of outright falsehoods in official releases, from the German's lie that Karl Strecker was actively fighting in Stalingrad long after he had surrendered, to the Allies lying about the nature of the infamous Air raid on Bari. To undertake a campaign of total removal of any Wehrmachtbericht while implying that editors, including professional historians, who defend its historical value are complicit in legitimizing Nazi propaganda, is inappropriate. Official releases are a foundational aspect of modern Military History.

Rebuttal

I created this account to harass coffman

The impetus of my return was the the aftermath of finding issues from Coffman's World War Two activities which I'd call systemic (referred to as an "industrial scale" by another editor) problems in the project. I have absolutely no interest in Coffman's general activities nor his person. He's active in firearms and political articles that I have zero participation in. I made all the effort I could to create content and make the small marginal contributions all experienced editors do, in areas such as AfD. I have had absolutely zero contact with Coffman outside of WWII articles, other than to solicit his help in the fending off of vandalism for a single BLP that I found myself in proxy to him in.

To quote the policy:

...there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.

Assertions have been made by TonyBallioni that I have "harassed" coffman in the continuance of my own editing. The provided evidence falls very far short of any substantive proof and so I'll leave it as it lies, to be judged as is.

My block

My account was blocked after engaging in a disagreement with Bishonen and Doug Weller, over the appropriateness of the redaction of criticism of coffman's editing. The corresponding pages are already accounted for. I believe MastCell was solicited to block my account, for spurious reasons. All I will add is that Doug has still not recused himself and I consider my actions to be undertaken in good faith. I have no additional comments other than what I've already said in the linked discussion.

My "personal attacks"

I meant it and I believe it. No regrets.

I am a Meat/Sock puppet[204]

I am not a meat or sock puppet, as asserted by Nick-D. In fact, the accusations by Nick-D cross into harassment. I demonstrated that I am not a Sock at a CheckUser. I demonstrated that I am not a Meat Puppet when I submitted my entire edit history to the ArbCom. Still, Nick-D harasses and attacks me. He has reverted my contributions wholesale and attacked my character here. He deserves censure and a de-sysop for this alone. His solicitation and encouragement of harassing behavior in conjunction with coffman's editorial are an addendum. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I canvassed MILHIST

Coffman describes my alerting MILHIST to disputes or potential issues in Military related articles as canvassing because they are not "military-operational" matters. I have no idea what this means. It's possible, although unlikely, that Coffman doesn't know that MILHIST has purview of all military biographies, which are the first two, and the third is a military memoir written by a military officer. The very first bullet at WP:CAN descibing what Canvassing is not says, "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."

Conclusions

Evidence presented by Peacemaker67[edit]

There is no doubt that military historians can focus too closely on organisation, training, strategy, operational details and tactics, promotions, awards and battles etc, and not pay enough attention to the political, social and ethical/criminal aspects of conflict. The entry for Erich von Manstein in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History demonstrates this, there is no mention of the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” or the Commissar Order. Other entries in that source for leading German WWII figures are similarly silent on these issues.

This systemic bias is created by the same mechanism that creates it in other areas of English Wikipedia, in that some editors are focussed on one (in this case, military) aspect, and lack the interest or wisdom regarding other aspects to ensure that a holistic approach is taken and NPOV is assured. This isn’t insidious forces at work, it is just that people edit things that interest them, and because sources on military subjects tend to be oriented towards the purely military aspects. The sources for such other contextual information may also be harder to access (including due to being in languages other than English, or being in academic journals), than popular sources on purely military aspects, which also creates perspective bias. There are, of course, a few editors who don’t wish to have any mention of a given figure’s political, social or ethical/criminal aspects in an article, and oppose their introduction or try to remove them, but in my primary area of interest (Yugoslavia in WWII, which is itself pretty fraught at times) they are fairly rare, and are dealt with effectively via the drama boards. That is where LR should have been dealt with.

It is my view that although KEC has done some passable content creation work recently with a few GAs, and has shone a light on the need for greater attention to what I would describe as the problematic “fanboy” oeuvre (eg Panzer aces), he is clearly here to “right great wrongs”, and has a very black and white approach, particularly to sourcing and what he calls "intricate detail". He significantly overstates the problem within articles covering the German war effort in WWII, which basically need appropriate focus on political, social and ethical/criminal aspects to place the military aspects in their full context, not the wholesale deletion of military and other aspects to leave only the former, which itself undermines NPOV.

In my interactions with him, KEC comes across as an editor in whose work censorious zeal and deletionism in relation to the military aspects of the German war effort of WWII undermines building the encyclopaedia. His editing behaviour is tendentious, “battlegroundy” and extremely persistent. He demonstrates a pretty unique take on WP:IRS and WP:OR, which he claims just about everyone else misinterprets. I avoid him as much as possible, as I find his censorious editing behaviour, wikilawyering and repeated refusal to “drop the stick” frankly quite odd, unpleasant and exhausting. Given the view I formed about KEC’s editing, it is not surprising that I mentioned him on the Milhist coord page. In my experience, the more eyes are on a problematic editor, the better for the encyclopaedia. More eyes levels out individual perspectives, much as ArbCom does. However, the idea that there is some sinister force at work because some editors oppose KEC’s editing behaviour is wrong-headed in my view.

Because of my primary area of interest, my interaction with KEC has related mainly to German personnel that served in Yugoslavia in WWII. I’ve looked at all of the relevant articles on my watchlist, and there is barely a single one in this area that he has not edited in the two ways explained below. Given his prolific editing rate, it is a quite reasonable assumption that what I link here twenty or more times from my watchlist would be twenty thousand diffs on articles relating to the German war effort of WWII. This is supported by Cinderella157's analysis mentioned above. From my interaction with him, KEC’s long-term problematic behaviour can be grouped into source removal and deletion of information, which are often interrelated and both of which undermine NPOV. Examination of his contributions page (and Cinderella157's analysis) shows that the amount of sources and material he has removed from Wikipedia is huge, and is the principal cause of friction with other editors.

Removal of sources

KEC removes sources that are clearly not RS, such as what I would describe as problematic “fanboy” websites, like feldgrau.com and axishistory.com, and good on him for doing that. I do the same myself, and have conducted wide purges over the years to get rid of them, and their Yugoslav equivalent. He has also identified some problematic book sources that could also be described as being “fanboy” in approach, and some publishing houses that are considered right-wing in Germany. Mostly good work by KEC, as these things should at least have attention drawn to them, even if some sources can still be used with care. However, KEC assiduously removes from articles book sources he has personally decided are unnecessary or “militaria”, despite their having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article and assuring NPOV is maintained. He commonly uses a number of misleading and/or spurious justifications in edit summaries, including that their use is “over-citation”, when in fact in most cases it is only the second citation for a given piece of information often where the sources slightly vary in detail provided. He sometimes removes the citations, then subsequently states the source is “unused” and removes it. Neither of these practices are in the interests of building the encyclopaedia, as they remove markers of potential sources of information for those that might wish to expand an article. One example of books he commonly deletes are the specialist indexes and dictionaries of biography on recipients of the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, the highest military award issued by Nazi Germany; books by Scherzer, Fellgiebel, Von Seemen and Thomas & Wegmann in particular. In the military history context, such medal indexes and dictionaries of biography are common with higher military awards, there are equivalents on recipients of the Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor. I’m not aware of any consensus having been achieved assessing these books as unreliable, they are used extensively on FAs and FLs covering these recipients. When reverted, [205] KEC doesn’t accept or learn from this, he merely moves on to the next article and does the same thing, sometimes returning later to delete them again,[206] and again, [207] and again. [208] More examples of this behaviour in my area of interest: [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]

”Intricate detail”

KEC deletes or comments out large sections of information from articles, often on the basis that they are “intricate detail” or “non-notable detail”, contrary to WP:NOCITE and WP:PRESERVE. It has been pointed out to him many times what a comprehensive level of detail is for a WWII military biography,[216] and that it includes details of early life and service in WWI (as applicable), dates of ranks achieved, awards, battles fought in etc, but he apparently refuses to accept this, and continues with his deletions regardless. Such deletions also undermine NPOV because they remove coverage of the military and other aspects of the subject. He also displays a misunderstanding of notability, in that it applies to whether we should have an article on a person, not whether a given detail is relevant to a notable subject. He often deletes or comments out entirely unremarkable information about place of birth and death,[217] [218] [219] ranks and awards because it is uncited (but most likely sourced to books like Scherzer, which he has previously deleted), thus taking away points of reference for editors who might wish to expand the article using such things as award indexes, dictionaries of biography, and similar reference works on, for example, members of the Nazi Reichstag. Here is an example of the latter.[220] He also comments out images and removes information about early life and service in WWI, and “See also” sections using the edit summary of “streamlining”, despite the fact that historians like Ben Shepherd have posited that experiences in WWI may have had an impact on unethical/criminal behaviour during WWII. [221] He sometimes deletes cited material in his effort to remove “intricate detail” or what he describes as “flagcruft”. [222] [223]. There are many examples of this deletion of supposedly “intricate detail” in my area of interest, here are a few more: [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] Again, Cinderella157's analysis shows that these diffs can be multiplied by a thousand.

Personal and project perspective

As far as any suggestion that I am in any way involved in pro-Nazi POV pushing, would shield those who are, or edit in a manner to whitewash Nazi’s, the idea is risible. My content creation record speaks for itself. In the first instance, I direct ArbCom members to the FAs Kragujevac massacre, August Meyszner and Gottlob Berger for community-reviewed examples of my NPOV work on German war crimes and war criminals in my area of interest. There are other FAs, dozens of Milhist A-Class articles and GAs to back these up. Happy to provide links as needed. As a coord of the Military history project for 3.5 of the last 4.5 years, I also wholly reject any assertion that the project in general or the coord team in particular is involved in such activities.

I believe that I should be permitted to provide responses to KEC’s specific allegations against me, and I am happy to provide same, but am not sure whether this is appropriate here or during the workshop phase, so I request guidance on this. I note that KEC has thus far been given a 4,500 word limit, plus the Signpost article to make his case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebuttal

Cherry-picking and monitoring

In my evidence I’ve addressed my take on KEC’s editing behaviour and why I raised it on the Milhist coord page. It was far from being an “inappropriate and aberrant suggestion”, and I stand by my actions, they were entirely appropriate given what I had concluded about KEC’s editing behaviour and his undermining of a fundamental pillar of WP, NPOV. This sort of attention is regularly garnered on Milhist talk pages when problematic behaviour is identified in articles covered by the project, particularly where NPOV is being undermined.[230] [231] [232] KEC's editing behaviour involves undermining a fundamental principle of WP (NPOV) and it is quite appropriate to raise that alongside others than do the same, although those I have diffed may not do so in such a "civil" way.

In the first dot point KEC quotes me talking about "very hard line anti-Nazi de WP". This is a reference to the anti-military POV demonstrated by KEC's editing behaviour, which is targeted at Nazi's and other German personnel of WWII. Being anti-anything is a bad thing on WP in my view, as it signifies an ideological approach about what should be on WP, and smacks of censorship. KEC's editing behaviour undermines NPOV by removing "military" sources and material from articles. I admit it was a poor choice of words, and I could obviously have put it better, but I have only really examined KEC's long-term tendentious editing and undermining of NPOV, and drawn conclusions about it as a result of this case. Up to that point I had avoided him as much as possible. He then uses quotes cherry-picked out of context. He has drawn attention to my comment about the “merit” of recipients of the Knights’ Cross of the Iron Cross, people awarded the highest award in Nazi Germany. In the first case I was making reference to the military merit, bravery, skill etc of these recipients, not any political, social or ethical/criminal “merit”. The point I was trying to make (perhaps clumsily) was that there are brave and skilled soldiers on all sides in any conflict, and I am sure many brave and skilled soldiers who were also members of the Nazi Party, and brave and skilled soldiers who also committed war crimes. KEC’s source removal and deletionism is targeted exactly at the material that shows any military merit, like awards, promotions and skill, and his editing therefore undermines NPOV. And, is he seriously questioning whether the Nazi Party was a popular mass movement in Germany pre-war? The Nazi Party got 33% of the vote in the last free and fair German federal election in November 1932. If that isn’t popular, what is? I was just stating a fact.

In the second dot point, KEC effectively implies (by saying he isn’t) that I follow his edits to undermine his work. I review or comment on many articles that are listed at Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, and I also conduct B-Class and below reviews listed at WP:MHAR. Last calendar year I reviewed 22 FACs, 39 Milhist A-Class Reviews and dozens of GANs. I am one of the most active coords in the project, as evidenced by the results of our quarterly reviewing tallies. [233] Far from singling KEC out, I’ve avoided him for the reasons I have identified above. Here is a list of the articles I've done GAN reviews on. I haven’t reviewed any of his articles except his current FAC (see below), and have only ever commented on the talk pages of articles he’s nominated, and very few of them. I’ll comment on three of his examples:

His comment about his review of my Gottlob Berger FAC betrays what I have said about his editing behaviour in my evidence. He demonstrates an anti-military POV through his editing behaviour, and has a pretty unique take on WP:IRS. He attempted to push his editing approaches onto the article via his review. I noted in my response there that we were (and are) at odds about a number of issues regarding his rather unique views about sourcing and deletion/reduction of “intricate detail”, and I believe my reference to him not reviewing in good faith was accurate. He was pushing his POV, even to the extent that he was suggesting some material be sourced to a book that didn’t even support the information. I was bringing our differences to the attention of the FAC coords when they were making a decision about whether to promote or not. Entirely reasonable in my view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:IRS and WP:NPOV

In his first dot point, it is hard to follow what KEC is alleging here. Is he saying that we cannot use comments about a book that are printed on the cover of the book in question? Many book covers incorporate observations by other authors or prominent people about the book in question, publishers and authors solicit these comments and send copies of their books to people in the hope that they will obtain positive feedback they can print on the cover. They also do that with forewords and introductions. This is what Scherzer clearly did, and he got positive feedback from some people, including a (former) Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) University professor and a section head of the Wehrmacht records agency, and printed it on the cover of his book. What I was defending with my comment in the FLC in question was the need to explain the history and development of these Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross indices, starting with Fellgiebel and then Scherzer, explaining how they came up with different figures by ruling people in and out based on their examination of the available records and other information. I fail to see what this has to do with WP:IRS or WP:NPOV, or any possible misinterpretation of those policies. If anything, KEC’s opposition to this information being included in the list undermines NPOV because it doesn’t permit a full explanation of the history and development of the sources relied upon for the list or the views of relevant experts on their value as a resource. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:IRS and WP:OR

In his second dot point, KEC claims that I confused WP:IRS with WP:OR in a talk thread about the Artur Phleps article. This is patently wrong and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the policies, and in fact of the discussion on the talk page between Assayer and I. WP:IRS states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Assayer was essentially saying that he believed (because of his analysis of the published material) that one source was mistaken, and therefore one version of a particular event should be removed from the article and the version he believed was correct should be the only one in the article. He did not claim that any of the sources was unreliable, he just stated that there was a mistake in one, and we should therefore remove the version of events cited to it. I responded that reliable sources often vary in detail, and what we do with non-fringe conflicting sources on Wikipedia is that we compare and contrast them, not decide for ourselves which is correct then only use that version. I stated that the latter approach would be getting very close to WP:OR, meaning that it would be an analysis of published material that implied a conclusion not stated by the sources. I stand by my statement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable, questionable and biased sources

His third dot point is at the crux of the dispute about sourcing which has come up regularly since KEC began editing in this sphere, and which others such as Auntieruth55 and Hawkeye7 have referred to, here or in response to the Signpost essay respectively. I’m conscious of the fact that some ArbCom members have indicated they don’t want to get into arguments about reliability of sources, but I think it is illustrative of where disputes occur, so please bear with me. An example of relevant discussion is here, from WP:RSN This dispute essentially has KEC and Assayer on one side, and a number of other editors, some of whom are former or current Milhist coords, on the other. I’m generalising here, but KEC (and Assayer to a significant extent) basically appear to take the view that everything in articles about the WWII military history of Germany, regardless of how uncontroversial the detail may be, such as someone’s date and place of birth, early life and service in WWI, organisation and movements of units etc, should be from peer-reviewed scholarly sources, and if it is not covered in such sources, then it shouldn’t be in the articles at all. This approach doesn’t accord with WP:IRS, and would completely undermine the Wikipedia goal of comprehensiveness. Assayer further claims that by including other sources alongside peer-reviewed scholarly ones, we are somehow sullying the scholarly ones by association.

The other editors in this ongoing sources dispute appear to me to understand that reliable sources vary in reliability, and non-peer-reviewed sources can be used, particularly for unexceptional information such as unit movements, locations and details of battles, and uncontentious biographical information like place and date of birth, dates of promotion and awards. One crucial issue here that KEC and Assayer appear to misunderstand, is that our policies allow for the use of questionable or biased sources, as long as they are used with care and properly attributed in-text with bias identified where necessary. This is a very important point. A lot of lower-level military history is written by participants, for example, most of the Australian WWI and WWII battalion histories were written by members of the battalions in question, so there is always perspective bias that must be addressed in using such sources, despite the fact that they are often the principal source of detailed information about a given battalion. This is also the case in this subject area.

To be clear, our WP:QS policy says that “Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims” (my emphasis). And WP:BIASED states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased or objective, but consideration should be given to using in-text attribution to identify bias to the reader. The clear implication of that is that if the claims are not contentious, then questionable and biased sources may be used with care and attribution.

In this case, I carefully used a questionable source (a history of the 7th SS Division written by one of its commanders, Otto Kumm) for a small number of pretty unexceptional pieces of information in the Artur Phleps article (which is about a senior Waffen-SS general and war criminal who was a key figure in Yugoslavia). After it was raised with me, I attributed it in-text in a couple of instances where it was used for anything that could possibly be considered contentious, and it was also noted when first introduced that the source was “strongly apologetic” (as described by another author). The material included from this source was mostly unexceptional biographical information about Phleps' career, promotions, how he joined the Waffen-SS, the fact that his son was handed his posthumous award etc, and it was not used to downplay or apologise for Phleps' criminality in any respect whatsoever. I encourage ArbCom members to read the RSN thread, as it also contains yet another example of KEC’s notions about “intricate detail” and more evidence of a misunderstanding of notability, in this case by Assayer.

To explicitly address another point raised, in the thread KEC has linked, I pinged all previous reviewers (some of whom were Milhist coords at the time) because the article had been promoted based on consensus that it successively met the GA, Milhist A-Class and FA criteria, and they were the ones who had come to that consensus. As KEC was claiming that it did not, and that it contained “intricate detail” that should be deleted, I thought it only fair that previous reviewers were aware that the consensus they had agreed on was being challenged, and on what basis, given we weren’t going through a community-notified FAR, it was discussion on an article talk page that they probably didn’t watchlist. They were free to comment or not on the matter. I fail to see what problem there is in that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

”Casting aspersions”

KEC claims I “cast aspersions”. An aspersion is an attack on someone’s character. I have not attacked KEC’s character, I have made allegations about his demonstrated editing behaviour, backed up by evidence, as have others. That knocks out the top two dot points, which relate to this case.

Tag-teaming. Assayer regularly appears to support KEC anytime he isn’t making headway in a discussion, regardless of how obscure the article might be. These are just from pages where the three of us intersect: [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] The reverse is also true. [241] [242] [243] Given my limited interest in the German war effort of WWII outside of Yugoslav topics, there would have to be dozens if not hundreds of examples of this across the German war effort of WWII. That logically means one of three things is happening: 1. They have almost exactly the same watchlist (extremely unlikely), or they follow each other’s edits to help each other out (possible), 2. They coordinate on-wiki (there is no evidence of that I have been able to find), or 3. They coordinate off-wiki (most likely). My allegation of tag-teaming is backed up by the many times Assayer turns up to back up KEC and vice versa. It is a glaringly obvious statement of fact.

COI. As I have shown above, KEC assiduously promotes the work of Smelser and Davies, creating an article on their book [244], promoting it across many articles [245] and trying to limit negative information in its lead [246]. KEC has also created an article on Smelser which is currently at GAN [247], and one on Davies [248], linking those articles to dozens of other articles. [249] [250] In my years on WP I have never come across such odd behaviour, so naturally I suspected that he is particularly enamoured with their POV or has some sort of link to them as a student or admirer. As it is rather odd, I questioned his connection to the authors, or least some explanation as to why he promotes them and their book across WP.

The rest of the allegations are supported by the evidence I and others have provided here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Indy beetle[edit]

Peacemaker67 and German-related World War II content

In an early 2018 MILHIST project A-class assessment for an article he developed on the World War II German occupation Serbian Commissioner Government, I twice suggested (Special:Diff/822059371, Special:Diff/823601550) that Peacemaker67 might want to include an opinion on the effectiveness of the Nazi-collaborationist regime by Gavrilo Dožić. The opinion in question was somewhat apologist in nature (I thought it should have been included simply because Gavrilo was a prominent Serb, not because his comments were necessarily an accurate analysis). Peacemaker67 twice (Special:Diff/822092081, Special:Diff/823604134) said he thought the opinion was not an accurate analysis of the government and instead added a critical analysis from a historian (Special:Diff/823745809). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German-related World War II content and bias

There are articles on the encyclopedia that do have pro-German/pro-Nazi bias in need of correction:

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few comments on this case

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by MastCell[edit]

LargelyRecyclable

WWII articles

I'm not a WWII person and I can't compete with some of the exhaustively detailed evidence others have presented, but I will focus on one particular case (chosen more or less at random from those mentioned in other editors' submissions) to illustrate my concerns: Joachim Helbig (a Luftwaffe pilot) was approved as a MILHIST Good Article by Auntieruth55 on 27 Jan 2010. Thus, according to our Good Article criteria, Auntieruth55 felt that all of the article's citations were to valid reliable sources.

Our site guidelines state: "[A]rticles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." It should be evident that at least 29 of the 39 sources in this article fail to meet this bar. So this was a clear-cut failure of the GA review system—regrettable, but everyone makes mistakes. My larger concern is what happens next: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1.

In the GAR, Coffman identifies these major sourcing issues (the GAR took place in 2016, so the sourcing tally is slightly different than mine above, but no less appalling). When an editor identifies this sort of embarrassingly poor sourcing in a GA, the proper response is some combination of gratitude, concern, and a desire to fix the problem. Instead, several editors worked together to defend the article's sourcing and to berate Coffman for raising the issue, often betraying an ignorance of basic site guidelines and policy in the process:

Editor claims: Site policy actually says:
Auntieruth55 defends the use of self-published sources via tautology ("The fact that his books are self-published simply means that he did not get them published in an academic publication. This does not mean that he is ignorant.") "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources."
Dapi89 aggressively defends Kurowski, the Nazi propagandist: "no, you claim he's unreliable, you prove it. He's innocent until proven otherwise. Do you understand? Else it is nothing more than your opinion. That's how it works. It's laughable to suggest otherwise" "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis in original)
Sturmvogel 66: "you don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source." This is a perversion of multiple site policies. Books are absolutely not reliable by the simple fact of their existence. Reliability stems from "hav[ing] a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." It is bizarre to suggest that once a book exists, it is automatically reliable unless explicitly debunked by an "authoritative source".
Auntieruth55 (at Talk:Werner Mölders): "We cite frequently the London Times, the New York Times, and other newspapers to comment on someone's military service? Certainly they were also used to promote the courage and heroism of other servicemen and women. Why not the Wehrmachtbericht?" Hopefully, most editors intuitively distinguish between the reliability of the New York Times and that of Nazi military propaganda.

To be clear, I don't see anyone pushing a "pro-Nazi" POV, or anything like it, or I'd have presented evidence to that effect. I do see evidence of abuse of an alternate account and harassment (on the part of LR), and of systematically poor judgement regarding historical sources combined with a defensive and obstructive response when the problem was identified. MastCell Talk 23:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by MPS1992[edit]

Campaigns against pro-German bias cause NPOV-violations

Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters. According the lede, the top tank ace of the western Allies during the Second World War. The body, By the end of the war, he was the top tank ace, the ace of aces of the western Allies (and therefore, of Canada), with a total of 18 tank kills and many other armoured vehicles. His unit may have been that which killed "tank ace" Michael Wittmann

Why is the Canadian a tank ace, when the German he may’ve killed only a “tank ace”, specifically-added scare quotes? Any reader with NPOV must be perplexed by this unexplained glaring bias.

User:Nick-D added the scare quotes while rightly removing an unsourced “Black Baron” nickname. Nick-D would have been aware it’s no longer permissible to call Germans tank aces without scare quotes… but no-one would complain if a Canadian continued to be described that way. Perhaps he just “fixed” the unacceptable German commander, and did not notice that exactly the same usage was applied, lede and throughout, to a Canadian.

When ordinary editing results in articles that would have an ordinary reader perplexed by obvious bias, there’s a problem. Caused by efforts to correct perceived pro-German bias. An over-correction.

Campaigns against pro-German bias disrupt article quality processes

K.E.coffman asserted HIAG met “FA requirements for scope, sources, etc.” A month later, candidacy not having found any support, and with first source-review already having found issues, User:Factotem, carrying out a second source-review, asked WT:FAC about cited sources not containing information they purported to cite. User:Simon Burchell advised this looks like sloppy referencing. The cite(s) should support the statement(s) made. If this is common throughout the article, it indicates a greater referencing problem, and will require substantial work. Third source-review requested, and User:Brianboulton mentioned the article had two sources reviews already. Yet the nom has thus far gained zero support after 34 days. There are other, supported articles, lacking source reviews; I can't believe that this over-attention on one article is the best use of reviewing resources.

This third source-review was taking place, including reviewer needing to request books through inter-library-loan to check problematic use-of-sources, late as 9-June, when K.E.coffman’s first admission of not sure where I got that last point (see below) had been 30-April.

This over-use of article quality resources is disruptive of those processes.

Sourcing used by K.e.coffman doesn’t stand up to scrutiny

Initial source-review for HIAG carried out by User:Nikkimaria. K.e.coffman’s replies includedI was using GBooks preview which unfortunately does not provide page numbers

Highly controversial article whose sources are “Gbooks preview”: recipe for disaster.

First comment in Spotchecks of the second source-review included nowhere can I find anything to support the statements in the second paragraph of the "Post-World War II context section!

K.e.coffman appears to acknowledge having added content for which he can’t find sources; not sure where I got that last point

Third source-review finds many problems, including, after K.e.coffman replies one issue saying I don’t think it’s needed since the linked article explains it … People can learn about the details in the linked article, him needing reminded You cannot include information that says it's sourced to Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74... that is not in Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74.

Serious citation problems extend to key elements of K.e.coffman’s thesis, & relevance of a heavily-used source: the first sentence is not supported on page 136. There is no mention of HIAG there or any remarkable success. S&D are talking in general about the overall German effort to rewrite history - but never specifically mention HIAG. For that matter - HIAG is not listed in the index to my (softcover) copy of S&D.[254]

K.e.coffman doesn’t fix all the problems, and reviewer concludes, specifically regarding sourcing/citation: [255] This isn't reflective of our best work as wikipedians, and it needs fixing. But it doesn't appear that the editors of the article will do that checking without someone going through and doing all the checking for them.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

More