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

Comments by Beyond My Ken
Could Auntieruth55 please sign their various comments on their own proposals, which I don't actually think should be in the "Comments by others" sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

On findings and penalties
I'm not sure whether this should be expressed here or proposed on the workshop page, but I'm pretty uncomfortable with the notion of ArbCom handing down findings and penalties relating to an issue which hasn't previously gone through ANI, a RfC, or similar. Quite rightly, ArbCom findings and penalties are a Big Deal, and will follow editors around for the rest of their time here. I think it's fair to say that this case is on the lower end of the matters ArbCom has historically considered, and I'd strongly encourage its findings and any penalties to take a correspondingly light touch. There's a real risk of some editors copping ArbCom sanctions for matters which none of the involved parties considered worth taking to ANI (eg, the Panzer Ace article). Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cinderella157
{{U}Assayer}}, thankyou for your response. I note, the workshop is now closed. Your intent was not clear and your response does not clarify what you intended WRT me and more generally. I understand you had an intention to distinguish but the distinctions you intended are not clear to me. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

, I noticed your recent comment on the workshop page. Here are some observations:


 * KEC would label all sources with a particular bias (or potential bias) as WP:QS and not to be used at all for anything.
 * Such a view fails to acknowledge that all sources are to some degree biased - even academic works can be strongly biased.
 * KEC's view does not differentiate nature of the material being used from such sources they label as WP:QS - ie. of a factual nature v material that is opinion.
 * Where somebody was born is of a factual nature. That the source refers to them "as an honourable man", is opinion.
 * WP:UNDUE goes to opinions being expressed in sources and the weight given to them in an article. It does not go to matters of fact.
 * Much has been made of Kurowski as a source in this case.
 * KEC's initial objection was that Kurowski was biased and therefore WP:QS
 * Only subsequently (and quite later to my understanding) did KEC present evidence that at least some of Kurowski's works were of a semi-fictional nature. This is quite a different matter with respect to those works so identified.
 * My observation is that much of the angst over Kurowski might have been avoided if this were presented earlier.
 * Many comments for retaining Kurowsi are likely made without the benefit of this "critical" information.
 * KEC's assessments of WP:QS are not always accurate. In this respect, See.
 * The analysis of KEC's edits shows: some 6300 edits reducing article size by removing an aggregate of 4.5 MB from articles were an edit comment refers to sourcing. A further 1500 edits referring to sourcing increase article size by less than 20 B.
 * On the otherhand, some 22,800 edits that reduce article content and do not indicate sourcing issues in comments. There is an aggregate reduction 18.5 MB.
 * Only about 2,500 edit summaries refer to "detail".
 * The figures quoted are for all edits by KEC. It is estimated that 85% of their edits are in GWE.

Some detail has been removed GWE articles on the basis the it is derived from a source KEC labels as WP:QS. However, a substantially larger proportion of material is removed without a reference to the quality of the source. I hope that this might provide some clarification of the issues in respect to your recent comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Workshop phase closure
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee I would like to remind all interested parties that the workshop phase of this case closes today. --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)