Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence

ArbCom: What is the scope of this case?
In accepting this case, several arbitrators stated that it needed to consider broad-ranging issues considering Wikipedia's coverage of World War II (for instance Doug Weller, accepted it with a "wider case scope to include at least all WWII related military history as the problem is wider than simply biographies", with DGG agreeing to this, and PMC accepted the case "to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history"). Other arbitrators accepted on the grounds that the case have a much tighter scope (for instance Euryalus accepted in order "to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history" and Katie accepted "to examine sourcing issues surrounding biographies of Nazis and the behavior of editors in this are"). As these are quite different scopes - noting in regards to Doug's comments that Wikipedia's coverage of World War II is vast and involves all sorts of issues - could the Committee please provide guidance on what the scope of this case is? For instance, in preparing evidence, should I focus on the issues around the historiography of the German war effort, biographies of German military personnel only, or World War II as a whole? (which would involve roping lots more editors in - for instance, issues around Poland's and China's role in the war can be troublesome, but involve an almost totally different set of editors than the main parties in the request for arbitration). Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The committee have explicitly not set a case scope, asking for wide-ranging evidence related to the case request. I think the main area of concern is editing related to the German war effort, but if you are aware of other significant misbehaviour in related areas then I would include it. Pinging the drafting Arbs for further clarification. GoldenRing (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A case without a properly determined scope is a recipe for a time-sink with no useful purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The name of the case is deliberate. The issues raised when the case was brought include those in the op-ed WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay as well as a specific editor. I think we can safely ignore the role of Poland and China, etc. Let's stick to our coverage of German participation and conduct of editors. Note that other parties will almost certainly be added. Doug Weller  talk 08:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cinderella157's comments below. Without a scope, there is a real risk of editors having to defend themselves and potentially being subject to ArbCom findings and sanctions relating to a matter which is well below the thresholds of what the Committee usually looks into. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Peacemaker67's comments about the risk of this turning into a witch hunt. I deliberately structured the evidence I posted to try to avoid this (not least as I really don't think this matter needs ArbCom intervention), but there's a real risk of sprawl here. I could have posted complaints about a bunch of editors, but given that the issues were minor and peaked last year I really didn't want to. I'd suggest that this case be closed. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As the case is opened, unless something very strange happens it will continue to the end. We might decide there is nothing to be done, we might decide to take action. I don't know why you say there is no scope. Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We currently have a box at the top of the case page stating "The Arbitration Committee has not decided on a specific scope" instead of telling people our scope is (I think?) any POV-pushing-related allegations of misconduct related to the German war effort in World War II. That's where most of the confusion is coming from. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is one of those perspective things - I'm hardly the most experienced arb here, but it turns out that even if you specifically try not to see things through the arbcom bubble, it's still really easy to get sucked in. Arbcom has collectively looked at hundreds of cases, the overwhelming majority of which did not have a statement about a "specific scope". And the overwhelming majority of those - quite possibly 100% - did not have a little box saying "there is no specific scope" right at the top as the very first thing you read on the page. This isn't the clerks' fault, this is arbcom's fault, but this is silly. It's like saying DANGER: WARNING!!! BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD. The leopard is entirely hypothetical, everything is normal and there's nothing to worry about. And then, you know, we're all very surprised when people post "Are you sure that submitting evidence won't get me eaten by a leopard?" No, nothing horrible is going to happen if you post evidence and, in the end, it turns out to be off the critical path. (It may still have been useful in figuring that out! It may still reflect a real problem, just not one that needs an arbcom remedy about it!) Post what you think are the key points and if someone has questions they'll follow up. Gathering evidence is not supposed to be a stressful or adversarial process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * a minor point - it was Premeditated Chaos that accepted in order "to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history" - I specifically voted to decline this kind of wider case as "something the Committee is not well placed to resolve." Alas, my view was in the minority on the day. I appreciate this clarification of my vote doesn't take away from your key point that different committee members supported different things, but it seemed worth noting anyway. Hopefully the case scope I've just posted, which reflects the majority opinion, will simplify proceedings going forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, that comment was somewhat poorly phrased. My intent was to focus on the misconduct issue as opposed to reviewing sources and possibly determining their reliability, which was being floated to a certain extent in the case request and which I really don't think we're suited for. For what it's worth I think the case scope as you've now put it is very good. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The scope which has been added helps a lot - thanks for this change. My apologies for that mistake Euryalus. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, your actual point was still entirely valid. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On Hawkeye7
it seems unjustified to name Hawkeye7 for merely disagreeing with you in a discussion of your op-ed. Hawkeye has conducted extensive, and very even-handed, work on Wikipedia's World War II coverage. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67
I entirely agree with Nick-D. A case without a properly determined scope is a recipe for a time-sink with no useful purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll go further. I'm very concerned about this case. This open scope approach is likely to result in two things: encourage a witch hunt against anyone who has ever written anything laudatory about German figures in WWII, and have a chilling effect on those who believe KEC's long-term tendentious editing behaviour in this area should be closely examined as part of the case. If you really want to prosecute an investigation into this area, decide on a proper scope before you start, otherwise you will likely not get evidence from all sides, and the outcome is likely to be seriously flawed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "proper" scope :) I'll be honest, I don't understand the stated confusion about scope (and didn't when it was asked at the case request either). The complaint is about POV-pushing with the effect of whitewashing articles about the German military. Others argue that the filer is tendentious in pursuing this belief. So evidence should ideally consist of examples of either POV-pushing or tendentiousness, or of related interpersonal conflicts if they exist, or of rebuttals of either the POV-pushing or tendentious editing hypotheses. I realize arbcom overcomplicates a lot of things, but this doesn't need to be one of them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what you think it should be about, but not what the scope says at the top. What about the rest of the Arbs? There appears to be a range of opinions on the scope. I'd like to hear from them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with Opabinia regalis, there's merit in a look at the editor conduct of LargelyRecyclable/k.e.coffman to unpick allegations of tendentious/POV editing and claims of harassment. Plus the conduct of any other specific editors regarding whom related evidence is submitted.


 * That's my take on what this case should be about. Of course it will be somewhat up to the drafters, who will be the people closest to the case progress and may discover other areas or conduct issues that need to be explored. Happy to leave this in their hands and see where it goes.


 * However, a personal view in one related point: In addition to specific editor conduct concerns, k.e.coffman alleges that Wikipedia coverage of the WWII German war effort is systemically skewed towards the "clean Wehrmacht" theory. This is a serious allegation and deserves a thorough review, including of source validity (for example, relative to the time and place sources were written, and the geopolitical biases of their authors); it'd also be worth reviewing sources and content to ensure we're giving due weight to all points of view - the oft-quoted example might be a Wehrmacht officer whose article includes only their military record and not (say) their lifelong membership of the Hitler Youth and vigorous attendance at Kristallnacht. The need for this review is made more credible, and more urgent, by the emails from reputable historians to k.e.coffman expressing concern at the historical dangers in this field.


 * So far so good, but this sort of generalised source and content review is not best done by Arbcom - it is a content issue outside our usual remit, and none of us are regular editors or experts on WWII topics. Better that this detailed review be approached in good faith by others in the community, either off their own bat or via Arbcom encouragement of a community response. It absolutely needs doing, but in a different forum to this one.


 * Again, the above is a personal view and it will be up to the drafters on how widely the case is ultimately drawn. I'd expect we'd all take part to the extent possible, regardless of whether we individually agreed with that decision. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: With permission of the drafters I've added a scope. See the Evidence page, or the section below. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, I believe it will help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the disclosure. I don't think you need to recuse. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I support Cinderella157's request for the full context of the communications that elicited the historian's statements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add that the selection of which historians to contact, and which responded, is also an issue that ArbCom needs to inquire into. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as the case title goes, a more neutral one like “World War II military history of Germany” makes sense to me. I disagree with the historiography suggestion, as this case is about editor behaviour and POV pushing, not just historiography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for extension
Given that KEC has effectively involved me by naming me several times in his evidence, and he has been given an extension to 3,500 words, I request extension to 1,500 words. I won't need more than 100 diffs. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, noted, up to the drafters who will come back ASAP. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only fair considering the expanding scope; I am perfectly fine with the extension. Alex Shih (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Query regarding rebuttal
I have a query. Quite a bit of rebuttal evidence has been added on the evidence page. I believe that I should also be entitled to rebut the assertions that have been made by KEC about my editing and comments. In fact, natural justice demands it. I just want a steer from the drafters about where this should be provided. Not having been involved in an ArbCom case before, the Workshop doesn't really look like the place for it, as the horse appears to have bolted by then. Some guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. The amount of rebuttal permitted in the Evidence phase is up to the drafters, but FWIW the horse certainly hasn't bolted by the workshop phase. If anything the Workshop phase offers greater clarity on what actually needs rebuttal: many claims and assertions made here in Evidence will vanish in the winnowing process of the workshop, and never need further response.
 * So the options are:
 * If the drafters say ok, add rebuttal here and now in /Evidence (advantage - it's open and upfront, disadvantage - you might waste time replying to things that weren't going anywhere)
 * Post on this page the specific assertions you plan to rebut but then hold fire until you see if anyone is actively pursuing them (advantage: its clear you plan to reply, disadvantage - none, really)
 * Do nothing now, wait for the Workshop and reply there (advantage: no time wasted, disadvantage: you may be busy doing other things when the workshop rolls around).
 * Whatever works best. Arbcom cases move very slowly, and everyone gets many chances to have a say. So whichever option you choose, you won't miss the opportunity to respond. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Makes sense. I might wait for the drafters to give me a steer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

For now I'll just note that I will: a) point out KEC's cherry-picking of quotes out of context, b) rebut assertions about my following his editing to criticise his work, and c) will address his claims regarding WP:IRS and NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The evidence page actually deals with this: "The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page." So rebuttal is fine, although don't forget that analysis is basically for the workshop page. You can have up to 4500 words. Doug Weller  talk 08:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the steer. I'll add some material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that KEC has now (by my count) exceeded his limit of 4,500 words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4,515 words according to the script I am using. It exceeds the extended limit by 15 words (~0,3%), which shouldn't really be a problem here. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just drawing attention to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll add, for ’s benefit, that it is easy to make accusations and provide diffs out of context. Providing Arbs with the context requires more words than just throwing mud, especially when we are talking about long-term civil POV pushing which Wikipedia always struggles to deal with. And unless you are a party, Bishonen, you should be required to stick to the word limits. I am not auntieruth55’s keeeper, she can ask for an extension or trim her evidence on her own, or be directed to by the Arbs. I was drawing the attention of the clerks because KEC has also got their Signpost article as well as 4,500 words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please let us worry about the word limits, we've been doing this for years. I see that Cinderella157 is concerned about civility on this page. I'm sure we can also deal with that, but your comment about throwing mud might be the sort of thing he is referring to. Doug Weller  talk 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by LargelyRecyclable
Frankly I'm somewhat confused myself. What are we doing here? A lot of specific issues have been raised but none seem to have to been identified as being under review. Further guidance would be appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the status of aforementioned off-wiki material. Is it publicly submitable? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's now been over a month since I first asked for clarification on what evidence can be presented. As we edge closer to the cutoff for submission of evidence I still can't find any reply on this topic from anyone in ArbCom. Have I missed the response? If not, is one forthcoming  ? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Haven't you read any of my replied to others on this page about the scope? There's also a big heading at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence saying what the scope is. We'll give more time for evidence. Doug Weller  talk 20:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. My question isn't the scope of the case, it's whether or not specific evidence previously redacted under OUTING is publicly submitable, as explained in my provided link above. I've made the case that the material is not actually covered by OUTING and that it is in the interest of the community to be able to review it, vis-a-vis Coffman's behavior. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? A general response: If there is evidence that has been redacted because it outs someone, it should not be resubmitted publicly. Instead, it should be provided privately to the committee and we will consider it as part of the case. If in doubt re evidence that may out someone, err on the side of caution and do not post it in a public forum. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if I'm confident that the material doesn't meet the parameters set out in OUTING I can post it? I'm assuming that the ArbCom has already received this material via email., at the least, knows, he initially redacted it. Why can't I get a specific response to the question regarding this specific material? My assertion is that the material was inappropriatly redacted in the first place. Is it the ArbCom's position that this is incorrect? Has a review been conducted at all? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the original suppression remains in place for the material in question and has not been reverted, I think it should be obvious to you that re-posting it publicly would be OUTING. We have received the email you sent us and will take it into account in our deliberations, as we do with any other privately submitted evidence. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious? I asked for a review, I asked for an update of the status of the review, several times, and now, again, here, I'm given the run around. All I wanted to know is if the material has a been reviewed and a decision has been made. Also, I haven't sent you an email on that material, how could you have received it? What's going on over there? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that email was sent by Pudeo, not by you. That being said, he did ping you below when he discussed sending it to us, and made it clear it concerns the material you're asking about, so I don't understand why you're still asking to post it publicly when it has clearly been made available to us privately. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Again, first because I don't think any of it actually meets OUTING, two, because I think it's beneficial for the community to see it, and three, because it's exceptionally difficult to establish any framework of evidence for tendentious editing in this venue while tip toeing around it. The material directly corresponds to his on-wiki activities and concretely demonstrates what's been alleged by several editors about his behavior, all while not actually outing his actual identity in any way, shape, or form. If the answer is no, that material cannot be posted, I can live with that, even if I don't like it. I just want to know that the material has actually been looked at again by ArbCom and a finale decision on it has been made. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it has been looked at. No, we did not see the need to un-suppress the material. Please do not re-post it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for extension
@Alex Shih I too would appreciate an extension. I've been working with both my life and the observation of evidence in an ArbCom case filed against me. Drimes has hostile overtures and I'm waiting for him to drop his "evidence." A few days would be awesome. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , please comment in your own section. And this will be the second time you are being reminded about expectations of decorum on arbitration pages, which means no personal attacks, and no speculation on the motives of other editors. Alex Shih (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought assertions on the motives of others was a core component of this process. Would you like me to move my request to my own section, or is this sufficient to communicate my desire? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like about 3500 words to adequately rebut and make my own assertions. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by BU Rob13
In response to the above, I agree. Arbitrators were unable to reach a majority in favor of any particular scope, but a majority was ok with opening the case without specifying one. At present, the Committee is proceeding on this case with no scope, an expectation that our list of parties likely includes people we won't look at and excludes people we will look at, and really no idea where we're going or how we're going to get there. We're flying blind, exactly like I predicted when voting to decline this case due to a lack of prior dispute resolution. I argued against opening a case under these circumstances, and I think the confusion here clearly shows why we should have procedures requiring a clear scope before a case is opened. I think this is a recipe for deadlock. If every arbitrator has a different idea of what this case should be, it's very possible nothing of substance will gain traction in the proposed decision. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cinderella157
Please advise on what basis I have been added as a party and what specific allegations have been made that should be addressed.

I note the comments of BU Rob13. Please provide a scope. Please indicate specific and broad issues within the scope. Without a defined scope, parties cannot effectively respond and there is no way of determining what evidence may or may not be relevant. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * See my response and Opabinia's. As for why you are a party, see Bishonen's evidence. Doug Weller  talk 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Doug Weller, I was a little confused by "See my response" but think you mean: at PM67's comments? observes (above): "At present, the Committee is proceeding on this case with no scope ...and really no idea where we're going or how we're going to get there. We're flying blind ... the confusion here clearly shows why we should have procedures requiring a clear scope before a case is opened." If your statement above, Opabinia's (but not Euryalus?) represent the scope, then this should be made explicit to remove any possible "confusion".


 * Your response indicates Bishonen's evidence as the reason for my being made a party. However, their evidence and your response does not make explicit specific allegations. There is no reference to policy or like that would "reason" for my inclusion as a party. I remain unclear as to what I should address in consequence of being made a party. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've offered a personal view above, because we were asked to and it seemed a reasonable request - from my perspective if you have evidence relating to the conduct of specific editors in either POV-pushing in "German war effort" articles, or harassing each other, or making false allegations, then post it. If you have a wider view on systemic source misuse or otherwise in this same set of articles, feel free to post that also as some Arbs expressed interest in including this per k.e.coffman's initial case request. I don't personally think this allegation of systemic problems can be resolved as part of this case, but will defer to the drafters to carry that forward or not that based on evidence received. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You address any evidence about you that you wish to address. If there isn't any, or isn't any evidence that you think worth addressing, you don't have to do anything. Doug Weller  talk 11:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Doug Weller, Bishonen's evidence was in two paragraphs. While their first allegation was a little less than direct, KEC and Bishonen have subsequently made the substance of the allegation clear. This then leaves the second paragraph. It is unclear what, if at all, the substantive allegation is with respect to WP policy (or like) that might be grounds for censure. At the moment, all I see is ad hominem and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this is a matter which ArbCom intends to make a determination on, then please state so and the substantive reasons (WP policy or like) against which such a determination would be made. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not the way these cases work. We first wait for people to present evidence. When that phase is finished we open the workshop where editors and Arbitrators discuss the evidence in detail. Only then do we start a discussion about a proposed decision. And finally we make a decision. If evidence is submitted about you that you want to comment on, obviously you're welcome to do that and of course to add other evidence. We don't have a major role in the evidence submission phase. I don't think I can add to what I've said. Doug Weller  talk 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, per your post at Nick-D's comment. Your observation that a scope is often not given is well taken. It appears perfectly reasonable if a case is largely confined to the substantive matter raised by the case requester and any counter allegations made by the nominated involved parties. However, various Arbs have expressed individual opinions that the scope of this case goes beyond such a limit. It includes the possibility of naming additional involved parties (of which, I am now one). You observe: Gathering evidence is not supposed to be a stressful or adversarial process. Unfortunately, it has already become an adversarial process - partly because of the implied scope. KEC and Bishonen have already made additional allegations against additional editors beyond those specifically identified in requesting this case. I would refer to the comments by PM67, that he has been effectively involved.

I would ask you to consider my most recent post to Bishonen and the question I pose regarding the principles of natural justice. Defining a scope of inquiry (to my perception) goes directly to this. There are then, other multiple issues that arise. KEC and LR (to a lesser extent) have had significant time to make or respond to the allegations. Parties subsequently named are not afforded the same time - an issue of natural justice. I also note that the time for receiving evidence is less than the time taken from opening the request to the time of final Arb comments on the request. There is then the matter of where a named party responds? I also note that KEC has been given considerable latitude in making both their case and in presenting "new" evidence. While the same latitude was extended to others in the request phase, is it to be extended similarly to other parties in the evidence phase? And then there is the question of subsequently nominated parties? While KEC has made much of their case in the request phase, nominated parties don't have this advantage, even if they have made statements - their statements have not been directed to their defence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You are free to request an extension of the evidence phase, which incidentally is something that is currently being discussed. In your initial statement, you have mentioned that you are able to provide "evidence necessary" to substantiate your claims against K.e.coffman; are there anything beyond the diffs you have provided in the case request, such as in your subsequent response to MastCell ? If so, could you kindly re-organise these evidence in a slightly more concise manner? In addition, now that we have defined a scope, if you have anymore questions, we will be more happy to answer. Alex Shih (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alex Shih, I apologise for not responding earlier. I intend to provide more detail and diffs to support my claim. I am not certain what you intend with your suggestion to reorganise and make more concise and how this relates to my response to MastCell or more generally. My response to Mastcell dealt with two issues: conduct of KEC at Talk:World War II reenactment and how MastCell's statement in regard to my conduct there, was a gross misrepresentation. For clarity, I may have benefited by being set out with headings and dot points? I was working on the issue of Mastcell's misrepresentation by way of a partial response. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Request an extension of the evidence phase and extension to word limit of evidence

 * Noting the above comment by Alex Shih. I would request an extension to the evidence phase. In making this request, I would refer to the time afforded KEC as a party, that KEC has made in evidence fresh allegations not touched upon in the request (as late as 24 May) and that the issue of scope was not resolved until 23 May. On a personal note, I have quite a poor satellite internet service, which has been problematic in assembling evidence.


 * I request an extension to the word limit of evidence commensurate with that granted to KEC. In making this request, I would also refer to references by KEC to their Signpost/Bugle article, which largely underpins their allegations. I would observe that, by default, it appears to be part of their evidence well beyond a mere diff.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , I am fine with extension of the evidence phase, possibly by one week or two pending discussion. About the word limit, personally I wouldn't extend to "commensurate" with, but rather around 1,500 words comparable to the request made by to maintain proper weight of evidences (as K.e.coffman is presenting evidence against multiple parties as part of one major argument). Pinging other drafters  and  for more input. Alex Shih (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Alex Shih, on the subject of time, a week would appear reasonable. On the matter of length, the same might be said of me (compared with KEC) but to a more limited extent. At this time, my evidence is shaping to revolve around quotes, for which diffs in a conventional sense may be less than adequate. It might greatly simplify my evidence if I were to collate these separate from my evidence - say, on a user sub-page. Diff links from evidence here would then be to this sub-page for such a quote. The sub-page would link to the original source to preserve context. My evidence per the allegation regarding MastCell's conduct relies on a point-by-point analysis of the misrepresentations made. This was done in my response in the request phase. My response to MastCell there, dealt with two separate issuse: the events that did occur at Talk:World War II reenactment; and, the misrepresentations made by Mastcell. Distinctly separating the two might simplify an understanding of the two issues. This too could be done on such a sub-page. This is not without a degree of precedent compared with KEC (their Signpost/Bugle article). This suggestion is not intended as a way of circumventing any word limit but as a way of simplifying what might otherwise appear to be complex. It is analogous to using appendices and annexes to a document. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The deadline for evidence has been extended for two weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In respect to the misrepresentations made by MastCell, I would point to this link. It is, an extract from my original post to the case request that has been linked in evidence. It identifies that which specifically applies to MastCell, as a direct copy, translated into dot-point form with minor annotations. It may or not, be substituted for the link presently provided. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bishonen
@Bishonen, if, in respect to my closing links on the request page for this case, if you wish to make an allegation of misconduct, please make this explicit. Please indicate the substantive basis for such an allegation by reference to appropriate policy or like.

In respect to your statement in regard to this, I refer to the discussion with @TonyBallioni, on my talk page, I stated:

To your first para of evidence with respect to me, you have referred to your post to my talk page. In that, you stated: "I'm never one to insist on insincere apologies, but please introspect a little ..."
 * 1) My "intent" (that is, my point) was a warning of what might be!
 * 2) If this request to ArbCom is accepted (it now is?), where might that path lead. I was looking beyond the individuals involved.
 * 3) I deliberately did not overtly state my intent. It was a literary device intended to give an "edge" to this thought provoking statement: "Hey, just what did he really mean?" Read in full (ie, not removed from the fuller context), the literary device I have referred to lay in not overtly stating the intent of posting the links.

You may wish to consider this and revise your statement to ensure that it is accurate and does not misrepresent matters. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Bishonen, thankyou for your response to this. I have been out and was just about to strike the first part of the above (request to make explicit), having reread your post that was originally made to my comment section here. On further considering that response, I was going to take it as your final word and did not wish to appear to be badgering you in respect to this. You did, however, beat me to retracting my question. If I have appeared to badger you in respect to this, I apologise. On my closing suggestion, I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt in case you had misspoken.

On the issue of the principles of natural justice

 * Since you have raised the matter in your response, It [WP] doesn't go by its own policies alone, but also by larger moral principles such as common decency and sense of proportion., do such larger principles include the principles of natural justice? This is a question I was going to ask of the Arbs in any case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the following sounds a little curt - it's not meant that way. The Committee applies the principles at WP:ARBCOND. Also, all Committee members are members of the editing community, and are expected to abide by the usual community rules for common decency, collegiality and a general assumption of good faith. The Committee isn't a court and is not formally bound by laws of natural justice, but I'd hope we approached cases with enough good faith and courtesy that people felt we were doing the right thing nonetheless.


 * I think your question specifically relates to the idea that people have the right to know if they're accused of something, and be given a fair chance to respond? If so: while noting the above re natural justice, I reckon this is a good principle which should be applied in this or any other case. In my view: complaints involving personal information can be sent via email; but if possible the Committee should then carefully anonymise the key parts of the complaint and let the person it's about have a chance to reply. An exception is spurious or unsupported complaints - if the committee has no intention of considering such a complaint further, there is little point in troubling others by asking them to respond to it. Other exceptions include certain complaints with real-life implications, which may be referred to others like the WMF or legal authorities; and complaints that the committee doesn't need to deal with at all and which can instead be forwarded to more appropriate locations. Note that while this is a personal view, it does seem to reflect the actual way of doing business in recent years.


 * So the very short form of the above: if someone has a complaint about you they should make it here on the case pages so you can reply. If they make a credible and relevant complaint via email instead, we should in fairness do our best to ask you about it without giving away any confidential info. Hope that's useful, and happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Euryalus, thankyou for this. While natural justice underpins the legal system of many countries, the application of these principles are not confined to legal process but (at least where I come from) more generally to decision-making processes that potentially impact on the rights and interests of an individual. They apply to both government and non-government bodies. I was certainly aware that ArbCom is not a court. I hope this explains though, the basis of my question. The principles are somewhat nebulous but can be summarised as a duty to act fairly and impartially. There are many ways in which these principles can be codified. Concerns that I and others have expressed about scope, would fall to natural justice. This has, thankfully, been resolved. It is not sufficient to know the "evidence" of an allegation but also the "charge" being made. It is the basis for defence against an allegation - hence my concerns with Bishonen's evidence (the second para). There is then the matter of impartiality and bias. A separation of powers distinguishes between those making a charge and those deciding a case such that "no man a judge in his own cause". Bias can arise from pre-conceptions. The article, Natural justice, describes and warns against actual, imputed and apparent bias. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there are already grounds for a "reasonable suspicion of bias" which undermine my confidence in fair outcomes being achieved in this case. Most of these concerns are evident from posts to this case or associated diffs. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're accusing the Arbitration Committee of bias? Doug Weller  talk 05:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the reply, and glad the scope is useful. Am concerned at your comments on a perceived lack of fairness and impartiality. If you feel that one or more arbitrators are biased, please consider the process outlined at WP:ARBCOND under "Recusal of arbitrators." If it's a more general view that the entire committee is biased, then we may have to disagree as I don't see any evidence to support that view. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Doug Weller, I am not accusing the "committee" of bias. Rather, there are a number of "issues" that give me cause for a "reasonable suspicion of bias" in each instance. @Euryalus, thankyou for your reply. I have seen this process at WP:ARBCOND. I think that airing these concerns in an "open" conversation of the "issue", without making any "specific" allegations is a first step. It is less adversarial and thereby, more productive? Simply acknowledging what might lead to a "reasonable suspicion of bias" would most likely allay any concerns (given the implicit integrity of Arbs) without suggesting a need for recusal. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to continue the discussion, and yes an open forum is better than via emails or other private mechanism, unless there's a specific need for confidentiality. I don't know what answer might be given to your question about what might lead to a suspicion of bias - perhaps if an arbitrator had previously expressed consistent support for a case party in content disputes, or was known to be an off wiki friend of one of the parties? I don't think either of these apply in this instance. But rather than me speculating, if there's a specific concern you have regarding any arbitrator, please do share it so it can be resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

thankyou for the disclosure. Transparency retains confidence in the process. I don't think you need to recuse. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of K.e.coffman
I would observe that much of KEC's evidence appears to relate to discussions about sources and their views about the suitability of sources. IMO, it is certainly appropriate to raise issues of sources as it directly relates to the scope of the case (such as matters of POV pushing and tendentious editing). Much of KEC's evidence in respect to sources appears to be out of scope. I note that KEC was asked to expand on the subject but that this was before the scope of the case was advised. I acknowledge comments by Arbs that they will filter through what evidence is or is not appropriate. However, this does not help those named by KEC to identify what should be responded to. I am suggesting that some intervention by the ArbCom on the admissibility of certain evidence with respect to scope may help to facilitate the evidence gathering process by keeping it on track and ultimately benefit all those involved. I know that I intend to make a brief comment on sources in a way that then directly relates to matters in scope; however, further allegations have now been added which relate to me and which are quite likely, out of scope. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Historians' statements

 * I would note that it would be appropriate to also add the communications that solicited theses statements (it is my understanding that they were solicited) to disclose the context in which these responses were made. Ideally, I believe that this should be done in a way verifiable by ArbCom. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Per KEC's post below. They indicate that the emails sent contain links to other users not part of this case. By this, I would understand that they have not participated in this case? I would submit that the linked material is relevant if it in any way shaped (or potentially shaped) the perception of the reader - be it the historians to which it was addressed or ArbCom. The corollary is: if it did not have such a potential, there was no reason for making the links in the first instance. At the very least, the linked material should be disclosed.


 * If KEC linked to a person part of this case but not a party, then I see no reason not to include the link - especially if, by the link, ArbCom considers naming them as a party. They should be made aware of any allegation made against them. On the otherhand, if the link is in essence an allegation against a person part of this case (or potentially part or party), there arises the question of whether anonymous allegations should be permitted to be made. In this respect, I would refer to comments by Doug Weller  at Talk:Werner Mölders. -an anonymous attack [or allegation] is unacceptable. If these are allegations, the genie cannot be put back into the bottle as the material is nonetheless relevant. The alternative then, is to name the linked person (and notify them)? It appears that KEC has opened a Pandora's box. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: The link posted by KEC in their evidence as being the email sent is clearly not the only communication they have had with the historians whose responses have been presented. It is also unclear if the posted responses are the only responses. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: KEC's evidence: Cinderella engaged in personal attacks
In respect to KEC's second paragraph:


 * I would request through the Arbs that KEC be asked to amend their evidence to clearly indicate and make explicit which of their links and statements specifically relate to me and are comments by me. I consider the present statement to be a misrepresentation of fact but assume good faith. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I note this Revision as of 20:14, 20 May 2018 and Revision as of 17:42, 30 May 2018. I perceive these "additional" allegations to be somewhat disingenuous. But, more importantly, KEC's evidence does not accurately reflect the timeframe with which these additional allegations have been added.'


 * The evidence of a personal attack per Talk:Werner Mölders is not mentioned in their initial evidence. The evidence of attacks (plural) was subsequently added. The addition does not result from my conduct subsequent to KEC posting their initial evidence. It was not raised in their statements during the request phase. By my count, KEC made four edits after what has now been referred to as my "famous" links on 22 April. The last of these was on 3 May. KEC had more than ample oppurtunity to identify these links as "personal attack" - particularly in the context where an attack would be particularly frowned upon. These are issues I will raise in evidence. The issue I wish to raise here is the "appearance" of KEC's evidence, which does not accurately represent the timeframe in which allegations have been made.


 * I further note that KEC posted an allegation: In addition, Cinderella canvassed MILHIST noticeboard here, for the matter relating to Waffen-SS reenactment controversies. Cinderella had stated that the dispute was about WEIGHT, not military matters, yet chose to post to MILHIST noticeboard, rather than NPOVN. Revision as of 02:16, 24 May 2018 This was removed in there edit of Revision as of 17:42, 30 May 2018 30 May (above).


 * This is an implicit allegation of misconduct per WP:CANVASS. It was retracted six days later in a way that did not acknowledge the original accusation. That this allegation has been withdrawn is a tacit acknowledgement that the allegation cannot be substantiated. That they have withdrawn this so silently, implies culpability without contrition. I will be raising this in evidence but my point here, is a matter of process.


 * KEC has now made three significant edits (plus 2 lesser) in addition to their initial evidence between between 20 May, where they posted their initial evidence, and 1 June, which were minor edits but referred to major content. The content added was neither emergent nor rebuttal - or not identified as such. It has also included deletion and modification of material which is not "inconsequential". I would refer to the comment by Bishonen made on my talk page which is explicitly linked to this case request. Their edit summary states: Please note that silently removing/altering text that somebody else has already commented on is frowned on.


 * While I have not commented upon this allegation, it was certainly noted and will be addressed in evidence. This is not a an inconsequential alteration. It is possible/likely/probable that other editors have shaped their evidence upon evidence presented but subsequently altered without "clarity" of alteration and after significant pause - not a matter that can can be dismissed by virtue of immediacy. The issue I raise here goes to process. It makes it difficult to keep track of what is being said/alleged and when. It is also a matter of "appearance" that potentially impacts upon how evidence is interpreted. This then becomes an issue of fairness and natural justice.


 * I note that KEC added an additional allegation of personal attack (now attacks) in a way that was easily overlooked and was indeed, overlooked. While KEC is not the only one to make edits which "might" reasonably cause concern by not preserving the timeline and continuity to a reasonable standard, KEC's edits stand out by virtue of nature and extent. I observe that these actions potentially undermine the integrity of the process. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Per comment by TonyBallioni, my concerns are not that the evidence has been edited but more, how it has been amended and added to. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Incivility
I note uncivil comments that have crept onto this page that sail close to, perhaps indistinguishably so, to personal attack. That is, they appear very close to being so and it is difficult to distinguish them from so being. I acknowledge that this is, by its nature, a process where matters hostile to the interests of others will be raised. However, hostility directed at others is not tolerated by WP and there are very explicit warnings made here. I am concerned by such comments and by how these have been dealt with or rather, largely not. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How this is dealt with (or not) can create a "reasonable perception" of bias. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is rather vague. Could you be more specific or offer some examples? Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Doug Weller, most recent, you commented on this post. Peacemaker subsequently struck words from his comment. From my view, this appeared to be a "tit" for a "tat" and hence, my comment about perception. These are the most recent examples. It might be difficult not to respond in kind where certain comments appear to be condoned. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear. Peacemaker said something about throwing mud. A bit over an hour later you commented on civility.I thought that might refer to Peacemaker's post and made a mild comment about it. Peacemaker reacted sensibly and civilly. Where is the tit for tat? Where is the perceived bias? But as an experienced Arbitrator, I can assure you that we take into account editors' behavior during a case.  Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Doug Weller, Peacemaker's comment (the "tit") was "mild" in responding to Bishonen (the "tat"), which, in my view, appeared strongly hostile and condescending and consequently elicited the response it did. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * SYou seem to be saying that although you think Peacemaker was uncivil he was justified. This seems to be part of your disagreement with Bishonen. Is there something specific that you think should be done? And I ask again, what are you talking about when you say "perceived bias"? Doug Weller  talk 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Doug Weller, you asked for an example and the most recent appeared most pertinent. That Bishonen has a disagreement with me is not material to raising a legitimate concern and comments by Bishonen are not the only ones that caused me to start this thread. I did not say Peacemaker was justified; rather, that I could see what gave rise to the response nor did I say they were uncivil. You specifically made an observation in the first instance, which I have not disputed. In my view, if there is a tit-for-tat like exchange, it should be dealt with evenhandedly lest it give rise to a perception of bias. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Spreadsheet
I have referred to a spreadsheet analysis in my evidence. I acknowledge that this should be presented and made available to others. However, there are three issues. Firstly, it is still subject to change as different searches are made. This only means that a version of today may not be the final version. Some sheets in the workbook will not change further. Secondly, it is very large. It has capture KEC's edit summaries of which there are about 42,500. It is in the order of 45 MB. It may be possible to unpackage individual sheets within the workbook to a more manageable size but these will still be large - I estimate 7 or 8 MB. The third is simply a matter of the best way to make this available, for which I would like some suggestions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for an extension by K.e.coffman
I would like to request an extension of the word limit for my evidence; the matters are complex and require me to provide context for the diffs. I would appreciate an extension. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The limit for involved parties is 1000 words and 100 diffs. How many words do you expect to need, approximately? --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * About 3500 words & <100 diffs. The diffs require context, i.e. it's hard to substantiate the claim of misuse of sources just by providing a diff; I need to explain how the source is being misused & what the source actually says. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do these diffs focus entirely on currently named parties, or other editors as well? If other editors, can you send a list to arbcom-l? Thanks. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your extension to 3500 words is granted with the understanding that the Committee may later ask you to trim your evidence. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see this from : "If you have a wider view on systemic source misuse or otherwise in this same set of articles, feel free to post that also as some Arbs expressed interest in including this per k.e.coffman's initial case request".
 * I would like to request additional 1000 words to expand on that theme, as this comment was posted after I had compilled my evidence, and to cover rebuttals. Also, I sent an email to ArbCom; I would appreciate a confirmation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi k.e.coffman, just letting you know we got the email. No view on word limit, will leave that to the drafters. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That's ok, but you might be able to also tighten your current submission. Doug Weller  talk 16:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffman
I felt the interactions with Hawkeye were relevant to helping the Committee evaluate the handling of sources in the topic area. Note that the first one occurred in 2016 and the last one in 2018. The recent exchange was more than about "merely disagreeing (...) in a discussion": Thread.

Hawkeye was mostly agreeing with the op-ed, but the comment that attracted my attention was this one: "Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use." – Wait, what? Why must we use "poor" sources? His subsequent explanations did not clarify matters. When I submitted my statement, I felt that these exchanges were in scope, being part of a pattern. In any case, I'd be happy to remove this evidence if instructed by the committee. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This from  is lengthy but I was especially struck by two statements:


 * "So what" indeed. And:


 * Emphasis mine. This choice of language is offensive and inappropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that has solicited your evidence on May 27, but you chose to add it just yesterday. I find this behaviour rather odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, let me ask you directly: why did you wait so long to submit your evidence, given that the evidence period was four weeks? What prompted you to join the case at this late stage? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally avoided mentioning users who were not parties to the case (unless they had been mentioned by other users first). As you can see from my edit history, I did not log in yesterday, so did not have much time to add the evidence I wanted to add, including the third statement.
 * Since you decided to join the case, I felt these diffs were relevant. I.e. someone who's not aware that the Wehrmacht directly participated in genocide should probably avoid editing the article on the clean Wehrmacht. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Statements by historians
As advised by Arbcom, I’d like to post two statements from historians. I can do it in my userspace and then link from the evidence. Alternatively, I can post them on the evidence page. In the latter case, I would need about 700-word extension for both (combined). Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you confirm that you received emails from the two historians? K.e.coffman (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We have, thanks. Keep yours in userspace with a link from the evidence. Doug Weller  talk 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I posted the links here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you confirm receipt of my initial e-mail to the historians? I see that two editors have requested additional context. Even though the topic came up in the RFAR, I've not posted it, as it linked to discussions with users not previously part of the arbitration. Should I publish it as a whole (if at all), or perhaps with those links removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As suggested by ArbCom, I linked the email in the same section: Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Courtesy pings to, ,  and  since the links/discussions reference them. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * could you confirm receipt of email sent to Arbcom list earlier this week? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest e-mail I got/can confirm was from time stamp Thu, Jun 7, 3:53 PM; did I miss something? Alex Shih (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure when it was sent. Does it have: "That is why I would include such information..."? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't find that. Doug Weller  talk 20:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Was sent on : "Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2018 4:00 pm. Subject: Your message to ArbCom-l awaits moderator approval". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject line was: "STATEMENT". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Case name
& When I created the case request, I was looking for something concise and neutral. The phrase "German war effort" appears somewhat frequently in literature, and not in an apologetic context. For example: The above authors are historians and other scholars. My intention with the name was to (1) keep it short; (2) place the focus on the history of the participation of Germany in the war, as the problem seems unique to the coverage of its side of the conflict. For example, there are no corresponding myths of the "clean U.S. Army" or the "blameless Red Army". The phrase is used in the context of World War I as well: sample.
 * Germany and the Second World War:
 * Richard Overy:
 * Ben Shepherd:
 * Richard J. Evans:
 * Doris L. Bergen:
 * Mark Mazower: Etc.

To avoid a perception of bias, perhaps we could borrow the name from the seminal Germany and the Second World War series? As in, ARBGSWW or ARBGWW2? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bishonen
Moved from threaded commentary. GoldenRing (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Cinderella157, if you think only evidence that is peppered with explicit references to our best-known policies, such as WP:NPA, is of interest to the committee, I think you're in for a disappointment in these proceedings. Few people will supply policy links, because they'll assume arbcom has already heard of them. My evidence wrt you, for instance, notes what I call a "comprehensive attack on KEC", and I link to my own comment on your page, which, if you click on it, turns out to be headed "No personal attacks, please". You think that's not an "explicit specific allegation", because it has "no reference to policy"? My second complaint of you on the evidence page explains why I think your famous atrocity links were "extremely offensive". Still not explicit enough? I don't think insisting on policy links will profit you, but if you feel you can't respond to my evidence about you (and now also K.e.coffman's evidence about you) because it doesn't name policies, then that's your call: don't respond if you'd rather not. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Thank you, GoldenRing. A request for you: I see you also removed LargelyRecyclable's response to me in the same thread, and put it.. nowhere. You disappeared it. I see from your comment on LR's page that that was deliberate. But I thought LR's post was something the arbitrators should see. Please put it in his own section. I understand your intentions were good, but please don't hide things on arbitration pages, least of all comments by parties to the case. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Never mind, I've been given to understand an arb requested the removal, so it's as much as your job's worth to restore it. Seriously, though. They left Cinderella's notorious "atrocity links" on the page forever (compare Newyorkbrad's comments on them here), but they can't stand looking at LargelyRecyclable harassing somebody, when harassment by LargelyRecyclable is part of the case? That makes no sense to me. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
 * The comments have been referenced on the arb list, and we are all aware of them. You can be sure that we will take them into account when making our decision as necessary. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * re : No, I don't wish to revise my evidence in the way you request, or refer to "appropriate policy or like" in it. I'm already a little over 500 words, for one thing. But mainly, Wikipedia is a part of the real world, though it may not always seem so. It doesn't go by its own policies alone, but also by larger moral principles such as common decency and sense of proportion. Why don't you ask Newyorkbrad for the policy basis for his comment on your closing links, which was rather sharper than mine? He may be able to explain it better. Also, he's an arbitrator and one of the drafters for this case, so his opinion matters a bit more than mine. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

Word limits
I'm not sure what word counter people are using, but according to Wordcounter.net, KEC has now exceeded their limit of 4,500 words by posting 4,558 words. (Even less according to Kostas' script, apparently.) I was surprised by Peacemaker67's complaint about this. Neither Peacemaker nor anybody else (certainly not the clerks) has said anything about Auntieruth's 1,280 words of evidence, added long before she was made a party to the case, and consequently more than twice the 500 words she had then been allotted. Is it just an accident that you commented on Coffman's excess of their word limit by 1.3%, Peacemaker, but not on Aunteruth's excess by 156% ? Or do you use a different wordcounter, which gives a dramatically different result?

To be serious, it has become obvious that the word limits aren't being enforced, and thus only affect people who read instructions and try to follow rules. This seems unfair. Therefore I intend henceforth to add what I need to add, without asking permission. I don't mean to defy the arbs and clerks; if they do demur, I'll reconsider. Also, a note to myself and others: we won't do ourselves any favours by being wordy. Coffman is IMO very concise, using many diffs; it still ends up being many words, because they have much more ground to cover than anybody else here. The people who post essay-type evidence without so many diffs, such as Peacemaker and LargelyRecyclable, are in my opinion not being very concise. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC).
 * I wasn't talking to or about Auntieruth55, as such, but since I did mention her, I should probably ping. Done. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Just keep your evidence concise and to the point. I've asked the clerks to go through the evidence when it's an appropriate time and trim out the material which isn't actually evidence. Doug Weller  talk 08:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Pudeo

 * re and private evidence: I emailed the ArbCom with a short description of what was going on in that community and the links on 17 May, and there was no other communication. None of it actually meets what is described as "personal details" in WP:OUTING, but I imagined some editors might see it as doxxing anyway. I'm not sure if the Arbs see it as how relevant evidence, it's hard for me to say. And it's important to note that off-site behavior is off the scope, those kind of communities have memes and all, but it also included an attempt at getting WP:MEATPUPPETS and also reporting on his Wikipedia editing in a manner which I think seems battleground-ish. If I'm not mistaken, there was plenty of offsite evidence in the Gamergate and GGTF cases?


 * If you are going to discuss the sourcing issues later, it's important to know that K.e.coffman's line of thought comes from The Myth of the Eastern Front (an article created by him) which criticizes a lot of popular books on the Wehrmacht. My only comment on that issue is that discredited books shouldn't be used, but we can't expect to find academic authors on every military subject. That's not the RS policy either.


 * I feel K.e.coffman including, and  in his evidence for rather insignificant issues, after not mentioning any of them in his initial statement, is a low blow. The "no scope" of this case seems to turn into an inquisition into the military history project. Considering it's K.e.coffman who's arguably actually the most influential editor here (with c. 2000 redirected articles and his view of "intricate detail" in use), I hope each one of you find the time to do rebuttals and evidence for appropriate scrutiny.  What especially needs to be covered is the period from early 2016 to 2017 in the biographical articles.


 * re MilHist WikiProject canvassing: I was surprised to see K.e.coffman allege that notifying the WikiProject Military history would constitute canvassing. It's hardly a closed community as it has 860 active members. Hasn't this Wikiproject notification issue been already dealt with the Gender Gap Task Force? --Pudeo (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have not received your email. Please resend it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks. Katietalk 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd, I sent it from from Special:EmailUser and got a copy myself. Now I re-sent it with my own email and got the message about moderator confirmation so it probably worked now. Anyway, for anyone reading, this private evidence isn't anything too major, but I just thought it should be sent because a) several editors already knew about it so the ArbCom should too b) it sheds light on the background of the disputes. Also, if K.e. wants to know the message I sent, he is free to see it. I don't want to do anything behind someone's back. --Pudeo (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hi, just letting you know the email to Arbcom now received. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I think it's just good if someone has some experience from military articles. Also LR thinks should recuse, apparently because of interaction on his talkpage when he was unblocked and response to him on one flying ace's talk page after removing an IP's comment. I don't think that warrants recusal either? But it's ok to acknowledge Doug Weller was aware of the disputes between LR and K.e. before this case. --Pudeo (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think 2 weeks is unnecessarily long: Cinderella requested just 1 week and AFAIK we're just waiting for him to complete his evidence and perhaps Peacemaker67 will come up with something new. Many of the evidence sections are already massive and there is a risk of an "armaments race" of evidence or keeping people on their toes for 2 more weeks just in case someone digs something up. Just my 2 cents. --Pudeo (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni
just commenting here since I was pinged. I don't think you've ever been part of an ArbCom case before, but generally it is better to either present evidence that rebuts assertions (or makes them against others if need be) or to provide analysis of evidence on the workshop page. Asking for policy basis of comments, etc. on the talk page and repeatedly asking the arbs questions around scope when it has been clarified by several of them isn't likely to do much good at this point. Bish's evidence is already presented, she doesn't seem like she is going to strike it, and this case has been opened and is going forward, and there is a week left in the evidence phase. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (or any arb), depending on if you count the headers and signature, I'm at 516 words. I have no intent of adding anymore, but for the sake of procedure, can someone please grant me an extension to whatever my current size is. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, and thanks for asking. Doug Weller  talk 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That is normal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not an arb or a clerk, but just so you know, editing your own evidence up until the close of the evidence phase is pretty normal. It’s part of the reason threaded discussions aren’t allowed. The committee considers the final version of evidence posted (there’s too much for them to do anything else). TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Euryalus
Given the number of questions, and with the permission of the group of drafters, I've added a specific scope for the case which is reproduced below:

The wording of this scope was agreed today by a majority of arbitrators active on this case, as something that might be useful in clarifying evidence submissions. It also reflects the views of the majority when voting on the case request a few weeks ago, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Hopefully its helpful in crystallising the community's and Arbcom's thinking on how to approach the issues raised.

The "evidence" phase of the case is open for another week, so everyone please feel free to submit further materials if they think they're relevant. I'd say all of the existing evidence submissions fall within this scope, but that's ultimately the drafter's call. Happy to discuss, and will ask the tireless clerk team to ping all relevant parties to let them know this clarification has been made. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi all – I know this is late, sorry. Pinging in case you haven't seen the updated scope: . Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your /Evidence post. Re word limits and rebuttals - it's up to the drafters but in my view the Workshop is a better place for rebuttal than here, otherwise we will never see the end of the evidence phase. I appreciate a couple of others have posted long rebuttal commentary already, and I'd personally prefer them to remove these and repost in the next phase too. But again, up to the drafters on how the want to proceed.


 * Either way, support your request for a word limit increase to the same number of words granted to others. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments welcome on a transparency issue
A quick something in the spirit of transparency.

Background
 * As a Milhist member since 2007 I occasionally review GA, A-class and FAC nominations on military topics.
 * In February 2018, three months prior to this case, one of my own articles was up for GA review - HMS Lizard (1757). I randomly selected a Milhist article to review in return, which was Talk:Erich_Hoepner/GA1 nominated by.
 * The Erich Hoepner review was completed in April 2018 with some intervening comments from an unrelated Milhist editor.
 * When this case request was subsequently under discussion, I consulted with both and K.e.coffman to see if they had concerns about a perceived COI, given I was a past reviewer of a K.e.coffman article..
 * Both editors indicated they were fine with my participation in the case.
 * On this basis I voted on the case request, and the case itself was opened a month later.

Comment

In my view this GAN review does not pose an issue of bias, given it commenced three months prior and was entirely a content discussion unrelated to any editor misconduct. I note this view is shared by the two principal parties to the case, per the diffs above.

However perceptions are important, and given the broad scope of this case there is some potential for content discussion to become relevant to case debate. So it seems worthwhile to post this here and invite views on continued participation, particularly from those who have posted evidence. If there are any meaningful concerns about my having reviewed this GAN earlier in the year, I'll contentedly step off the case and leave it to others to carry forward.-- Euryalus (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Drmies
, wut? I'm just showing ArbCom this one edit of yours. OK, and one more, this here, combined with this link. "Hostile intentions"--sure. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC) UPDATE of evidence 30 June 2018: User:Diannaa asked me to clarify re:the flagcruft, an addition that Diannaa objected to, as did at least one other MILHIST member (see the talk page, where they are quite clear on why this cruft shouldn't be allowed). My point was this: if Peacemaker is indeed a member in good standing of MILHIST, then I hope that MILHIST members here object strenuously to Peacemaker's complaint about Coffman, that "He sometimes deletes cited material in his effort to remove “intricate detail” or what he describes as “flagcruft”" (and Peacemaker linked to that same von Manstein article]. I hope that MILHIST members will make it clear to Peacemaker, however this cookie crumbles, that Coffman should have been lauded for that edit. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC). Moved by superclerk bishzilla    ROA R R! !  pocket  19:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC).
 * Also, I like to think that my evidence is evidence, not "evidence". But by all means, cast aspersions--just remember that aspersions are lightly made and thus flutter easily in the wind, and Alberto may blow them right back in your eye. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing--, I'll ping you since you have been active here--I am waiting on a piece of evidence to be delivered by a historian. It's an assessment of the Panzer ace article. A historian is charged with providing this, but all of you know that historians can be slow, especially if they're on summer break. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , after condensing, taking out some verbiage and correcting an error, I'm a little bit over 1000 words; I hope that's OK (ha, I'm not the most long-winded one!). Drmies (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * are primarily responsible for case management decisions, but I recommend granting an extension to 1100 words (or some more to account for the extended evidence phase). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure it's fine. Kevin's recommendation sounds good. Alex Shih (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Doug Weller  talk 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sandstein
I don't have any particular views on the substance of this case, but I consider the case title "German war effort" misguided. It sounds like the kind of euphemism for Nazi Germany's war of aggression and extermination that a Wehrmacht apologist would come up with. This is particularly problematic because the case deals, in part, with Wehrmacht apologia. "World War II military history of Germany" might be more neutral.  Sandstein  07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, it is a fair point. If it is okay, I would like to ping and request the opinion from several other German Wikipedians uninvolved in this topic area that I am familiar with to comment on the neutrality of the current title.  . Would you mind? Alex Shih (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Folks, only Arbs should comment here, otherwise everyone needs to post only in their own section. Doug Weller  talk 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mostly my fault for pinging directly. I will move the comments to sections. Alex Shih (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SoWhy

 * I see where Sandstein is coming from. While it's not a necessary interpretation of the title, it's a possible one, so making a change might be a good idea as a preventative measure. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kusma
I am not thrilled by the current title either. "Effort", really? "Historiography of the Wehrmacht" might be another title. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda
As requested above: the title is awful, but better than mentioning a user or users. I have no interest in arbitration, as you may remember, so didn't follow any of this case, and suggested names of flowers instead, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Die Träger (the 28 wp articles)
Since we are discussing about an alleged bias about die Träger articles, it could be useful to look about the 28-articles directory, as it is published. This was formerly part of my 'evidence' section, but this can also be seen as a comment.
 * 1) The structure of these 28 files has not been published, nor discussed by anyone and is to be guessed from the articles. Since this structure is not so simple, maintenance of individual lines results quite ever into a break of this structure.
 * 2) Instead of using the Family_name, Given_name natural order, the US order is used, requiring an hidden sort key.
 * 3) Instead of using the Year/Month/Day natural order, the US order is used, requiring an hidden sort key.
 * 4) This, together with unused fields (vcard and fn), useless links to the four armed branches and even to 'killed in action' (who can ignore that "killed in action" means killed in action ?), in addition to poorly handled references (most of the time, only the page in Fellgiebel is needed) result in inflating the size of the files, requiring 28 of them in order to obtain a reasonable time of loading.
 * 5) Ranks are completed by a nato-like 4 characters code, used as an hidden sortkey. For example, Oberfeldwebel des Heeres is coded as 10-H. This code is the most important feature of the directory, and should be apparent (and all the useless equivalences stripped). Five of them are incoherent (and perhaps more are wrong).
 * 6) 1021 (upon 7321) have a rank "der Reserve". This is linked to Military reserve force. Such a link suggests a poor knowledge of the topic.
 * 7) Of the 7321, 1249 are linked to an individual page, 2025 are redirects to the main pages, 344 are ordinary, and 3703 are red links. This reflects the 'not so simple' history of the topic.

Length
Dear Kostas20142. The material I have submitted was 'officially' circa 930, and 969 as roughly estimated by my own wc. I have reduced to wc=536. I hope this will fit. Otherwise, please allow me the some words more! Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments presented by Sturmvogel_66
I've handily exceeded the word count so I'm going to put this here. Feel free to move it to the evidence page if deemed more appropriate there.

I think it's pretty clear that k.e.coffman has an agenda to clean up Wikipedia from the remnants of the Clean Wehrmacht myth as embodied in older sources dealing with WW2, but it's one that I actually support. Despite heated arguments over sourcing, we have worked together (see Talk:Police Regiment Centre) harmoniously when expanding material related to war crimes committed by the Germans, but much less so when they delete stuff as intricate detail or fancruft that I believe is actually valuable information.

My fundamental problem with their actions and edits mostly relates to questions on sources and their reliability. For just two exceedingly long discussions see Talk:Joachim Helbig and. Taghon's book on Lehrgeschwader 1, published by VDM Heinz Nickel, figures prominently in both discussions as the publisher has published a fair amount of material sympathetic to the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. This doesn't make it Noontide Press, the publishing arm of the denialist Institute for Historical Review. The company also publishes military aviation history, notably the well-regarded Jet & Prop magazine, as well as magazines aimed at modellers. I believe that it is best categorized as a trade publisher that publishes Landser-pulp literature (to use coffman's term) because that stuff sells well. Much like J.J. Fedorowicz and Schiffer Publishing; the former is much more narrowly focused on WW2 military history while the latter publishes a very wide range of books, including art, photography and crafts among others. Several years ago they published Globocnik’s Men in Italy, 1943-45: Abteilung R and the SS-Wachmannschaften of the Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland, a history of Odilo Globocnik and his staff's activities in northeastern Italy after their successful murder of Polish Jews in Operation Reinhard. Given that it details the participation of SS-Police and their local auxiliaries in several massacres, I submit that this is evidence that Schiffer isn't like Noontide Press and that ilk, which are the types of publishers that I believe that the third bullet of WP:RS is really referring to. I'm also wondering how much coffman and Assayer are influenced by the German Wikipedia's anti-Nazi policies in their actions and whether they have internalized the fact that their policies do not apply here.

I believe that coffman and Assayer are intepreting WP:RS too strictly and are willfully throwing out the baby with the bathwater with a blanket condemnation of the publishers that Smelser and Davies characterize as "Romancer". I believe that they are both failing to think through the applicability of WP:BIAS in these types of situations. So what if a Fedorowicz-published book fails to deal with the Oradour or Malmedy Massacres objectively or generally elides all mention of war crimes in which the division's members participated? WP:BIAS would require that we draw on other, more objective, sources to give an accurate, NPOV, account of the unit's activities. They are also misinterpreting WP:Primary to mean that such sources can't be used rather than must be used carefully as can be shown in threads that I linked to above.

The main thing that I believe that Arbcom needs to deal with here is that WP:RS lacks a method of resolving reliability claims for hyper-specialized sources that lack outside reviews and are written by non-academic authors. Coffman and Assayer are able to claim that books are not reliable because they're written by museum curators or judges, etc., not academics, despite extensive publications in the same genre or elsewhere. Essentially because these people aren't professional historians, but their definition that only seems to includes academic historians. I'd remind them that Barbara Tuchman never earned a graduate degree in history, nor did she ever have an academic appointment, but she somehow received the Pulitzer Prize for The Guns of August despite these handicaps. Coffman and Assayer are unwilling to understand that we have to use the sources available to us, not only those that they feel meet their definition of RS. WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS are there to govern how we extract the worthwhile information from the dross contained in most books, whoever their publishers and authors might be.

The problem is that professional historians, by their definition, don't often publish on hyper-specialized topics like the combat history of a panzer division or whatever that we here would find useful fodder for an article. And the hyper-specialized nature of the topics mean that they are rarely ever reviewed by reputable journals or websites. Thus none of the established criteria for establishing notability are applicable.

Coffman and Assayer rely heavily on Smelser and Davies when challenging the reliability of an author or publisher, as they must, because they're about the only historians that I'm aware that have analyzed the historiography of the German participation in WW2. But they're just one set of opinions; there's been no discussion of the topic by multiple authors to establish a consensus, AFAIK. I've read their book and, while I think that the first half discussing the books published during the Cold War is quite good, it starts to go off rails discussing the post-Cold War and Internet era. Smelser and Davies lump those authors who chose to focus solely on the military aspects of the German participation in the war in with those who glorified it as "Romancers". They seem to think that wargamers who play the Germans in their WWII-era games are actually pro-Nazi, or at least sympathetic to their cause, just like those playing Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg are somehow believers in the Lost Cause. While that may be true of some, they're far outnumbered by those who want a chance to do better than the historical leaders, in my experience, which often means turning a historical defeat into a victory. Such mischaraterizations, IMO, cast severe doubt on their judgment in this section of their book, which is the core of coffman and Assayer's assertions of unreliability.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Concerning the assertions made in the 5th paragraph about my attitude towards RS by non-academics I might point to --Assayer (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I give this excerpt from Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235:
 * This section features an inappropriate title. The question is not, whether Forty is an authority on tanks or not, but whether he is a recognized military historian and thus not only a reliable source in an article on tank commanders, but also a prominent one, worthy of numerous citations. His reputation as a tank officer does not enhance his credentials as an historian. In the meantime I have provided one of the rare reviews of the work in question.[13]--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the purpose of this page, it is for determining whether a source is reliable in context of the claim being made. Read the banner at the top, it states "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." --Nug (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? Do you think that Forty's credentials as a military historian are irrelevant when it comes to the question whether he is an authoritative source for historical information? And do you think that his military career in the British army renders any review of his work in question superflous? I am genuinely surprised.--Assayer (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So what indeed. So you think university trained career military officer who taught at the Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery School is clueless in military history and science in the context of armoured warfare? --Nug (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Above all I do not believe in analogisms. Not every military officer is also an able military historian and not every military historian is a capable military officer, either. Furthermore, as you underlined, this is about reliability in the context of the claim being made. It is not necessary to assume reliability by some reverse ad hominem argument. We may just as well stick to the book in question and the claims it makes.--Assayer (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does Forty have to be a prominent historian as you would prefer? Why are you adding an extra requirement to the determination of being RS or not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not feasible to discuss this in the abstract. Reliability of sources depends on context. The issue was raised in the context mainly of this revision of Panzer ace. I suggested to merge that article to Ace (military) anyway, but other than that I maintained that the article in question discussed the term, concept or "myth", if you will, and that George Forty (and Robert Kershaw, the other source in question) did not discuss this issue at all  Thus Forty may be a RS on the subject of tank warfare, but I do not consider him a RS for a discussion of the term "Panzer ace". Moreover, his (and Kershaw's) work were pitted against works by Sönke Neitzel, Steven Zaloga and John Buckley. The latter have a reputation that can be established by reviews of their works. My argument above pressed the issue of prominence in respect to balance which is a NPOV issue.--Assayer (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992
I’ve got my evidence down to somewhat over 650 words (by my count). Much of this is impossible to make shorter without removing direct quotations (supported by diffs) and simply leaving the diffs which (e.g. this one and this one lead to many pages of output without making clear which part is the relevant evidence or proves the assertion. Is this 650+ words ok for my evidence? Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should be just fine. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that you have added Evidence about me with 28 minutes left before the evidence period closed. By the time I see this new evidence, the evidence period is now closed. I find that rather odd behavior on your part. Did these edits of mine not cause you any concern at all during the several weeks that the Evidence period was open? Only in the last half hour? MPS1992 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you going to answer my question? If it appears that you were deliberately attempting to game the system during an arbitration case, that is unlikely to stand you in good stead for the long term. MPS1992 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question. I politely declined the reminder to participate on my talk page because it was clear that I would not have time to study the various evidence submissions in detail, and also lacked a deeper background knowledge that some participants seemed to have. And, as you know, offering detailed evidence properly supported takes a great deal of time. As the evidence submission process went on, it became clear to me that some of the participants actually did not have the deeper background knowledge that I had earlier assumed. Some of the evidence provided -- for example regarding Panzer Ace -- also led me to articles in Wikipedia where it was obvious that the campaign to eliminate perceived pro-German bias was obviously and embarrassingly challenging Wikipedia's neutral point of view. (Thus the first part of my evidence.) I therefore arranged to take a day off from my studies, specifically Tuesday 12 June, and spent the morning reading up to date on all the statements made and trying to make sense of the viewpoints, and the afternoon writing out an evidence submission and then trying and failing to get it under 500 words. I very rarely work on Wikipedia-related matters during the working day here; for once I made an exception.
 * The unveiling of the shoddy state of the sourcing in the HIAG article at its Featured Article candidacy was not complete until 9 June, and its candidacy did not fail based on sourcing until 11 June, but my decision to make the time available, took place before either of those dates. So no-one is responsible for the exposure of the poor sourcing other than the person who added the poorly sourced content.
 * Now. Why 28 minutes before evidence closed? MPS1992 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so in this edit in 2017, even though I specifically mentioned sources in the edit summary, I could have explained to you more clearly that citing sources is required for contentious claims in Wikipedia articles? If I had been more clear, it would not have needed to be explained to you again in the failed FA candidacy for HIAG that if it is not in the article as a citation. Putting it here on the talk page of the FAC is not good enough. It being in a linked article is not good enough. It needs to be on the information in this article that it is sourcing. Well, that's my omission, I suppose, and it might have saved a lot of trouble. But now we all know for next time -- I hope? MPS1992 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , while you're at it, you could learn from reading the Wikipedia article World War II in HD Colour. (I doubt it is the only television program of this type.) The Wikipedia article points out numerous inaccuracies in the rather breathless narrative, but it certainly does not go so far as to suggest that anyone involved in the program is a Nazi sympathizer just because they engaged in coloring freely available images of Nazi troops. MPS1992 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by GoldenRing

 * I have hatted pieces of both of your sections as a clerk action, as it's unproductive here. If either of you think there is gaming going on, you are free to enter into rebuttal in the "analysis of evidence" section of the workshop (and the arbs have instructed that they are okay with rebuttal during the workshop phase, particularly of late evidence).  If not, then there is no point to all this.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)