User:Cinderella157/sandbox 8

There are a number of matter I wish to raise but I do not, at least at this time, propose remedies.

Broadly I raise the following:


 * KEC has raised issues with GWE articles of anglophone bias.
 * Anglophone bias is the basis of the treatise by S&D.
 * WP identifies the issue of anglophone bias and remedies.
 * Access to non-English sources is a limitation.
 * Many of the changes/edits by KEC are legitimate and even, significant improvements. However, there is also a large proportion that have removed appropriate detail, created issues of weight or have been disruptive.
 * MastCell has observed and concludes no conscious attempt by any editor to whitewash GWE articles.
 * KEC appears to be using this case to gain censure of editors merely because they have opinions contrary to KEC's.
 * This has the appearance of being an abuse of process and a vendetta. I note the observation that this is a "mere disagreement on a website".
 * Many misrepresentations have been presented in evidence, particularly by KEC, largely through a lack of context. There are quite a few specific examples. It takes time to delve into these and gain an appreciation of the fuller context. In making allegations that are substantially misrepresentations, KEC would appear to be relying on the time element to obfuscate.


 * There is an allegation of harassment by LR. The same might be said of KEC in respect to pages they have substantially edited and the editors that created or contributed to them.
 * One can hardly go to any GWE article or associated or linked pages that have not received attention from KEC. Actions by LR giving rise to allegations have many similarities to KEC except for scale.
 * Allegations against LR are largely circumstantial and require a presumption of "bad faith". It goes against the guideline to WP:ASG. It focuses on personalities where there has been limited contact and makes a presumptions about the faith of the edits by LR, their reasonableness and whether or not they are mistaken. It requires time to consider the fuller context of diffs.
 * Certain allegations against LR have been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. Continuing to raise these gives, at the least, the appearance of "bad faith" in continuing to make such allegations.


 * KEC has made large scale removals of material based on their assessment of particular sources as being questionable.
 * I do not argue that all material and sources removed by KEC should have been retained.
 * KEC links to WP:NPOVS. ... a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view. This is consistent with the position of editors identified by KEC as having views they disagree with.
 * KEC has painted sources with a broad brush based on generalisations about the author or publisher and largely derived from the opinions expressed by S&D in a single source.
 * KEC's assessments are black and white. They generally do not assess sources individually or consider the nature of what may have been gleaned from a source. Issues of accuracy have been identified in their assessments.
 * KEC's assessments of sources at talk pages are presented as "indisputable" and generally as unsubstantiated ie KEC's opinion.
 * Where KEC links to articles, these have been created or edited substantially by KEC. Issues of weight, POV and accuracy have been identified with these.
 * There is evidence that KEC has managed, manipulated and misrepresented information to advance an agenda of removing detail from GWE articles.


 * KEC has removed other relevant material from articles on the basis that it is "unnecessary intricate detail" or that it is unrelated to the notability of the subject. This is against the broader consensus expressed by the project particularly. It appears that KEC is motivated by a POV in this respect - that the size of an article gives an "appearance" of it being laudatory.


 * There are cases where KEC has misrepresented cited. The representations made tend to create a darker picture of the subject that what is actually conveyed by sources. This creates issues of weight and POV which might be described as blackwashing. The extent, within one article and indications across multiple articles suggest a degree of deliberatenes.