Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
German war effort of 1939–45		20 April 2018	8/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

German war effort of 1939–45

Initiated by K.e.coffman (talk) at 00:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification LargelyRecyclable

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Sample attempts to resolve the disputes include:

• Talk:LargelyRecyclable#Landwerh, Fedorowicz, etc.
• Talk page section "Eastern front" (with sub-sections) in Erich Hoepner
• Talk page section "Leeb and Einsatzgruppe A", in Wilhelm von Leeb

Statement by K.e.coffman

My op-ed in the Bugle, WP:MILHIST's newsletter, summarises my findings on the subject of Wikipedia's mythmaking when it comes to the German war effort of 1939-45:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay

I believe there is evidence to suggest that contributions by LargelyRecyclable's (LR for short) are promoting the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Quoting from the essay:

An apologist worldview akin to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, it posits that if it weren’t for Hitler’s inept leadership, difficult terrain and weather conditions on the Eastern front, and Allied material superiority, the German army would have emerged victorious. This outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war.

For example, in the Erich Hoepner article, LR consistently removed information on the crimes committed by units under Hoepner's command:

• 11:09, 13 March 2018, with edit summary "Lead is a mess". Removed the mention of the Commissar Order that directed Wehrmacht troops to murder Red Army political officers immediately upon capture, contravening the accepted laws of war. The cooperation with the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile SS death squads that operated in the areas of Wehrmacht command, was also removed.
• An edit targeting related content for removal: 09:50, 21 February 2018. Also removed the 2 May 1941 order by Hoepner instructing his troops that the war must be "conducted with unprecedented severity".
• Another attempt to remove the 1941 order: 08:43, 17 February 2018, edit summary: "Totally lacking a reference (...)". ?, because the reference was provided. Etc. etc.

The only explanation offered in the course of these reverts was that "the connection is synthesis" (in edit summary), with these comments on 21 February 2018:

To simply lump in Hoepner with broad brush is not biographically relevant nor appropriate for Wikipedia. [1] (...) Both articles fail on the same merits. [2]

This does not pass the smell test. Side note: LR introduced this language into the article: "(...) Hoepner's troops came within sight of the Kremlin during Operation Typhoon" ([3]). 'Within sight of the Kremlin’ is a popular post-war legend. Ironically, the phrase appears verbatim in the 1953 publication The German General Staff: Its History and Structure 1657-1945 by Walter Görlitz: GBooks. Compare with David Stahel's Battle for Moscow (2013): GBooks.

Should the case be accepted, I can present additional examples. I've attempted to discuss on LR's Talk page, where he provided a non-justification for his reverts, while not engaging on the matter of the dispute around the Hoepner & Leeb articles: Talk:LargelyRecyclable#Landwerh, Fedorowicz, etc..

I find such airbrushing and mythologising based on biased or dated sources, and/or misrepresenting reliable sources, to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Reverts without justification and avoiding meaningful discussions are also problematic. I'm not sure what the Committee's actions should be, but a topic ban may be one of the possible remedies. More generally, I'm looking for the implementation of a system of discretionary sanctions for related articles.

I have consulted several historians who specialise in military history and the Holocaust, to validate my perceptions of these disputes. I received three attributed statements that I can email to the Committee to help you evaluate the case. Since some of the evidence is private, I would like to see ArbCom accept this request. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it ironic that LR describes my op-ed as incredibly disturbing, given the fact that a leading Holocaust scholar has found historical distortions on Wikipedia and resulting disputes "quite disturbing". The quote is included here, as well as in the original publication from the Society for Military History. The op-ed has already been published in MILHIST's Bugle, at the invitation of one of the editors, Nick-D. Some within MilHist indeed found it objectionable, but not all: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Review essay#Comments.

Separately, I would caution Coffman... [4] comes across as off. I've been a subject of hounding, personal attacks, and minor harassment (i.e. Special:Contributions/HicManebimusOptime, as alluded to by LR), so this immediate pivot does not surprise me. Targeting my contributions is what led, in part, to LR's block last year; the unblock comment included: "other behavior (edit-warring, hounding) was sub-optimal and should stop". In contrast, LR's limited time on Wiki has been largely spent whitewashing / edit-warring on the Hoepner page and reverting my contributions elsewhere: [5]; [6]; [7]; & [8]; including on an article he's not edited before: [9]. This last edit restored fringe / apologist sources, as discussed here. Given the behavioural issues, I would like to encourage ArbCom to take this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@Worm That Turned: The matter is complex and goes beyond content disputes—into how sources are used, and misused, and editor behaviour. Compare with: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. It also involves 3rd-party statements that I'd like to provide to the Committee privately. I thus believe ArbCom to be the best venue to adjudicate the matter.

There's a lot of backstory here, but I would like this case, if accepted, to focus on the disputes with LR, as much of his editing has targeted my contributions specifically. Upon joining, LR expressed concerns about "two or three activist editors working in coordination" [10]. (Indeed, a number of editors have been accused of being my "friends", "sidekicks" and / or beeing part of my "tagteam" over the years). LR continues in the same thread permalink:

It was then that I realized a lot of the "weird" things that had been bugging me about so many of the WII articles were all traced to the same source. The wreckage goes back over the past year and a half. MILHIST worked to push back some but a lot of them seemed to just give up and go home out of fatigue. [11]

It's clear to me that LR has joined the project to counteract the "wreckage", so him calling me a SPA that seeks to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is rather ironic. Apart from mythologising, I have observed LR misrepresenting sources in a number of articles. Sample from a TP discussion:

begin quote

The information that was added by LargelyRecyclable in this edit, ostensibly cited to Zabecki, failed verification: Despite the superior Soviet tanks and numbers Hoepner's 4th Panzer Group destroyed over 700 Soviet tanks, (...). ... led his forces to within 11 kilometers of Leningrad before being halted by Soviet forces.{{snf|Zabecki|2014|p=615}}

Here's Zabecki p. 615: it's a brief entry on Hoepner [12]; it does not discuss “700 Soviet tanks” nor “within 11 km to Leningrad”. That's either OR, with citation appended after the fact, or misrepresentation of the source. [Another example of a source being misused follows.] K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) permalink

end quote

Despite pings and having edited the article since the exchange, LR chose to ignore this misrepresentation of sources, while still apparently believing that the article "fails" because of what he considers "synthesis", presumably the inclusion of the crimes that the commander committed or condoned. Other articles targeted by LR for similar "rehabilitation" include Arthur Nebe (a GA), where he plans to "Check sources, POV, tone, reassess", and Erich von Manstein (also a GA), where he plans to fix "Everything" and then "rehabilitate" it. This information is available via User:LargelyRecyclable/dashboard which LR links from his user page.

Yes, as others noted, our articles need a lot of work to make sure that Wikipedia is not one of "the worst distributors of pro-Nazi perspectives and the Wehrmacht myth", as the historian Jens Westemeier puts it. To me, LR's editing stood out quite a bit. I found it to be the perfect distillation of how historical distortions can be promoted on Wikipedia—through a combination of bullying, evasion, misuse of sources, and excising of material that disagrees with the preferred interpretation of the subjects. That's why I decided to bring this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Here're several related reports from April 2017; they predate LR opening an account in Sept 2017:

• 3RRN: User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman (Result: Blocked 72h)

• ANI: User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel (closed as no action)

• ANI: Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 (closed as no action)

The admin action relevant to the present dispute with LR is covered here:

• Blocked for violating terms of "clean start". Includes discussion of hounding etc, i.e.: From your first edits - in which you tag-bombed a Good Article, edit-warred to maintain the tags, and criticized another contributor in personal terms - you have done the opposite, and actually sought out controversy and contention to the near-exclusion of all else.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Adding a couple more incidents; these are older reports:

• ANI, October 2016: Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime Result: Indef blocked

• ANI, October 2016: Personal attacks for "antifascist reputation" by user: Stonedtower Result: Warned

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Auntieruth55: re I'm deeply concerned about KEC's post on The Bugle in that it is unverifiable. (...) there are several quotes from prominent historians that may or may not be taken out of context. The historians are being quoted in the context of the Society of Military History (SMH) newsletter. Before submitting my draft to SMH, I approached each for quote approval.

My email was: "I'm following up on the below email. I reached out to the U.S. based Society of Military History http://www.smh-hq.org/, who invited me to submit a short article for their newsletter. I'd like your permission to quote you in the article, which is attached as a Word document." Responses were: "I have no objection to my inclusion as quoted in your piece for the SMH newsletter". And: "You have permission to quote me. In fact, you can say: this is fascinating and quite disturbing". Etc.

As far as what the historians were reacting to, one can have a scan at my user page (i.e. User:K.e.coffman#Humanitarianism Award Showcase) or read the newsletter which includes a few specific examples: SMH Headquarters Gazette, Winter 2018, p. 10. I hope that this addresses the concerns. KrakatoaKatie, @Newyorkbrad: & others: more generally, I am, of course, at liberty to share what I wrote to the historians; I can email it to ArbCom. If ArbCom deems it in scope, I could post to my userspace. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Re LR's comment: Coffman has now tacitly endorsed the linking of the K.e.Coffman name to off-wiki activity with his provided publication and essay [13] – I’m a bit surprised by this. For example, I’ve long been open about how I view certain peer-reviewed articles and their sources, as can be seen here: User:K.e.coffman#Special mentions, including FA/GA articles. Calling the attention of a research community to a perceived issue seems entirely normal to me. As mentioned in the Society for Military History newsletter, my “ask” of the its readers was:

I think it would be fascinating to explore this community further from an academic perspective. Wikipedia is fertile ground for further research into the image of the Wehrmacht & the Waffen-SS in English-language popular culture.

Press and researchers write about Wikipedia all the time. As an example, here's an interesting piece in Hatewatch about how fringe theories are propagated on Wikipedia and the challenges that editors in such areas face: Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets. Some of that is applicable to my experiences in the WW2 area. In any case, I would be happy to provide any information that ArbCom may request in the context of the case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by LargelyRecyclable

Well, this is bold.

Coffman and I (and many others) have had expansive content disputes on the proper scope and tone of material across a wide variety of articles, generally revolving around the Second World War. And that's largely, up to this point, the extent. I don't know what "smell tests" are, who his secret experts who apparently have forensically examined my edits for the odor of mythologizing are, or what high crime I've committed that would warrant his recommendation of a topic ban in front of the ArbCom. I've generally found Coffman to be polite, sober, intelligent, and always ready to engage in discussion, even if some exchanges could be described as terse and he's been somewhat overzealous in the correction of systemic biases in German-related WWII articles, both real and imagined. Additionally, we've had success in coming to resolution in content disputes in the past, both between just us and as a larger conversation, in places like Karl Strecker and Panzer ace, respectively. This is why I'm so surprised by this attempt to banish someone who disagrees with much of his approach to the topic with this medium, a medium that far outpaces the usual graduated steps to resolve whatever anguish he seems to be suffering.

This comes at a time in which I'm exceptionally busy in life and am not consistently making many contributions. I'll assume the best intentions on his behalf and just chalk it up to poor timing. My follow through on edits is not always great, as my time here is fit into the small windows of opportunity my life allows. I can grant that this could give the impression of disconnection or disregard to the general cycle of discussion, which could explain at least a small portion of this. I do my best to concede issues raised in such periods of inactivity instead of dragging them out and unreasonably force others to conform to my schedule. Again, see Strecker. I've never been involved in an ArbCom case before and I have zero desire to be involved in one now. This request seems neither necessary or wise, unless some of Coffman's "other examples" teased at in exchange for acceptance of the request will bear more light. Should the case be accepted I'll do what I can to participate to its conclusion and provide the most complete picture of the circumstances I can. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to amend the above. I've reviewed Coffman's Signpost draft and it's incredibly disturbing. The framework he's using to push his paradigm has potentially significant consequence for Wikipedia as a whole. This may, in fact, be something that the ArbCom wants to accept, although the context should likely be much broader than just his displeasure with my disagreeing with him at times. I would caution Coffman that this particular route has substantial implications for WP:OUT and the possible reexamination of off-Wiki material concerning the coordination of editing and other activist activities previously removed by DGG at Coffman's request. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've requested that DGG review a previously redacted incident involving Coffman that was categorized as an issue of WP:OUT. The incident in question does not, in my opinion, meet OUT and pertains to a pattern of disruptive behavior, canvassing, gaming, and a general lack of good faith in the furthering of an SPA that seeks to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be necessary to have disclosure done privately within the ArbCom, although it's my hope for full public disclosure on behalf of the community. I'll further establish context should the ArbCom so desire. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

[14] I'll address this, since other forms of this comment veer much closer to unsupported personal attacks against me. The "myth of the Clean Wehrmacht" is a real phenomenon, and well established. Its roots are both outright apologism and a non-apologist component of post-war European Cold War politicking in the West. I have never, in any shape, anywhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere, prescribed to the idea or advocated on behalf of the idea, that the German military was devoid of blame or a non-participant to either war crimes or the Nazi regime's mass murder of perceived racial and political enemies. In fact, the first biography I wrote after coming back extensively covers the murder of almost a hundred Jewish children by the SS and the Ukrainian auxiliary on the Eastern Front, with the immediate support and encouragement of senior Army officers. I've largely left additional commentary unsaid, to avoid a back-and-forth and to wait on a decision on the review of prior activities by Coffman, but I comment now because baseless accusations of Nazi sympathies or the intentional obscuring of the crimes committed in the war on my part is offensive and unreasonable. Discussion can be had about the proper scope and presentation of historical fact without resorting to such behavior and I'd ask that it stop. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

When the ArbCom takes this up I'd request that a review, clarification, or perhaps amendment, of the fresh start policy be incorporated into the case. Despite having disclosed my complete editing history to the ArbCom on a prior occasion and having my account deemed legitimate, I've been both superfluously blocked and accused of being a sock puppet, CU case and all. The issue is now coming up again in a negative context, here. Frankly I'm wondering if it hasn't been more trouble than it's worth, which makes me question the utility of the policy altogether. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that an acceptance of the Request for Arbitration seems to be a forgone conclusion, I'd request that the previously raised issue of the case of OUTING, the entirety of the filer's off-wiki exchanges with several current and former academics, and the circumstances of MastCell's block of my account be addressed in preparation for the evidentiary phase. I'd ask that a decision on the redaction of the OUTING material being rescinded, or at least that the restrictions on re-introducing it being lifted, be made prior to that phase. Without going into potentially privileged detail, the material in question does not include personally identifiable information on Coffman, it includes the acknowledgement by Coffman that it is in fact him, and it immediately pertains to coordinating on-wiki editing in an outside but still public forum. Additionally, Coffman has now tacitly endorsed the linking of the K.e.Coffman name to off-wiki activity with his provided publication and essay. To protect that pseudonym's wiki-related activities when done in a public environment and when it does not include any PII does not make any sense, especially as it demonstrates, beyond a doubt, prohibited behavior and conduct long recognized by the community as unacceptable. Secondly, I'd ask that Coffman be compelled to submit the entirety of any and all off-wiki email chains with his cited academics should he wish to use them as a facet of evidence in this Request. Without this, such evidence is inherently contaminated, as he seeks to lean on the credibility of these people. At such time the voracity of the provided exchanges could be independently confirmed by the ArbCom with the named academics when possible. I suspect that this is not a big ask, as Coffman has already indicated he is willing to do this. Lastly, as seen in my Talk page archive, the chronology of my block by MastCell, almost immediately after a dispute with Bishonen and Doug Weller on the appropriateness of removing talk page comments on the topic of Coffman's behaivior, makes very little sense as explained there. Should MastCell wish to participate in this Case I ask that a clear and believable explanation on the circumstances of my block be provided, as that situation has already been cited here MastCell and others. I hope these are all reasonable requests to make of the ArbCom, I've never done this before. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for a pause

Several attempts have been made to breach the accounts of editors involved in the area of World War Two. I suspect at least one attempt was successful. I'll ask that we give a pause before moving on with this to take stock of who else may have been compromised. I'd also ask that if the ArbCom has decided to make pubic previous off-wiki material relating to Coffman that they hold off on doing so. My opinion on the material hasn't changed but I'd say better safe than sorry for now. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

[15] @Euryalus: Thanks. I'd like to add that at least one editor has reported that, in addition to an attempted breach of his account, two weeks ago someone called his employer and demanded that his editing in WWII be "investigated". Whether or not it's related I don't know. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I've only encountered LargelyRecyclable once, which isn't a broad basis for a comment on them here, but I did not take away a good impression that time. See this talkpage section. Unfortunately it's a long section, and the relevant discussion comes at the end, but I still think the arbs will find it more illuminating read as a discussion, rather than as a collection of diffs (which I can of course provide on request). Please just do a search for the phrase "I was pointed to this exchange", where the relevant discussion starts. In the course of it, LargelyRecyclable restored an anonymous attack on K.e.coffman which had been removed by a CheckUser, and continued lawyering about it. Now, I don't blame anybody for not being aware that CheckUser won't publicly connect an account and an IP — probably most editors don't know that — but insisting on their own position, and going into mansplaining and personalising mode with it, after being repeatedly informed of the rules, might be unusual. It seems an unexpected length to go to to keep a nasty anonymous attack on K.e.coffman public. But as I say, that's a narrow basis. I would like to see this case accepted, not principally for the sake of sanctioning LargelyRecyclable, but because I think discretionary sanctions for the area would be very helpful. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC).

• Note: Cinderella157, who links to Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Great Purge and Night of the Long Knives below, is one of the coordinators of Project MILHIST. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC).
• Another note, re Auntieruth's comment that "we don't know what KEC wrote to these historians that generated these responses". Maybe not, but all the arbs have to do is ask for it. Similarly for the other private evidence that Kec has offered above. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC). Adding: never mind, I see Kec has now published their letter to the historians in their section above, so Auntieruth55's concern should be fully assuaged. Bishonen | talk 08:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Cas Liber

If y'all accept this case (which I think you should), there needs to be some examination of how sources are used or misused. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

The disputed issue appears to be primarily about what constitutes "neutral coverage" of Nazi soldiers and officers, and what are reliable sources in that field. As that is a content issue, normally the case would be rejected.

A related dispute at Panzer ace was declined by MEDCOM in January (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Panzer Ace), and this type of dispute is utterly unsuited for ANI. There seems to be no other forum to resolve this dispute, and it is likely intractable without intervention. In addition, both parties appear to have private evidence.

As a result, I recommend the case be accepted, and that the committee examine the merits of the content dispute, in as narrow a fashion as possible. This is of course highly unorthodox. Without examining the sources and understanding the desired article states of the editors, it is impossible to tell whether either or both editors are violating content policies.

Hopefully it would be sufficient to only adjudicate the content dispute at Erich Hoepner (or some other page if the parties agree), and not the more general question of World War II historiography, to determine whether either editor is pushing a non-neutral POV or mis-representing sources. Additionally, hopefully the well-organized WikiProject on military history would be able to aid in that process.

If the committee is unwilling to incorporate a ruling on the content dispute into the case, I feel this must be declined. None of the claims of outing or canvassing are worth examining on their own. It might be useful to suggest that MILHIST to run an RFC to establish a clear policy similar to WP:MEDRS. I'm not sure expanding discretionary sanctions will be useful, and without evidence that one party is pushing a non-neutral POV, there's no reason to impose any sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I have no subject-area expertise here, and no easy access to the books being cited. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding "POV pushing": determining whether that has happened is the content dispute that I feel ARBCOM will be forced to adjudicate. Pushing a neutral point of view on Wikipedia is not only permitted, but encouraged. KEC and LR clearly have different views regarding what "neutral" means here. At a brief glance, both positions appear defensible. The nature of the primary sources involved shouldn't be in dispute, only the biases of the various secondary sources. For a variety of (largely political) reasons, some sources highlight Nazi ideology in military biographies, while others downplay it. ARBCOM will have to determine which sources (and as a corollary, which editorial positions) are reasonable before it can find either party is POV pushing in a sanctionable way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Worm That Turned: my argument for ARBCOM accepting this is that no other forum can resolve the issue. If you feel an RFC that doesn't discuss the private evidence mentioned in statements can fairly resolve the dispute, I see no reason to accept this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• If the case is going to be about historiography of World War II in general, the editing history at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (ANI thread 1 ANI thread 2, currently under Eastern Europe DS) should be examined, as well as that of the "Polish death camp" controversy (AN thread). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The thought of expanding this case to include those long-standing Eastern Europe issues is giving me nightmares, and I don't even have to participate. As a practical matter, I recommend the scope not include those articles if at all possible; focusing on WWII German biographies and the editing behavior of several editors will be unwieldy enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• note to clerks: I am over 500 words; extension requested to current length (I don't expect to have anything further to contribute); I can also strike some of my earlier remarks that appear unlikely to be relevant going forward power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GreenMeansGo 

MILHIST notified. GMG^talk 11:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'm conflicted here. In general, I support Coffman's position. There is a lot of laudatory content on Wikipedia about Nazis that needs correction. However, I often cringe when I see their methods. I get the feeling that this is a crusade for them. I also wonder if their editing isn't ignoring other historical viewpoints. I haven't been able to do the necessary reading to see if the views of Smelser and Davies (which is basically Coffman's POV) are shared by most other WWII historians.

Whether Coffman is right about Smelser/Davies being the orthodoxy, there still remains the concern that their methods of correcting WWII Nazi content on Wikipedia at times appears to be battlegroundy. Coffman's always civil, but they are relentless and that can be enough to tire out other editors. See Talk:World War II reenactment where an addition of some particular incidents were inserted by Coffman into an article about the entire subject of reenactment but other editors objected undue weight grounds.

Coffman's also got some ... interesting ... views on what is and what isn't encyclopedic content. See Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel for example, where this excision is discussed. A lot of information is lost with Coffman's deletions - including the year when Rudel joined the Luftwaffe, when he began flight training, etc. While we don't need the detail on all of Rudel's postings, the year Rudel joined the military is useful detail. The fact that he was not popular with his fellow trainees is also useful. And there is probably similar information that has been cut that others would disagree with. Yes, there is a lot of fluff, but surely there is a middle ground between nothing and too much detail.

I can't begin to judge LR's editing. He edits very infrequently, and I'm struggling to see how someone who has made a total of 66 edits this year (and under 1000 in total) needs to be the subject of an ArbCom case. I'm not seeing that RfCs or other steps of dispute resolution have been tried.

As I said, I'm conflicted. I support Coffman's points most of the time, and in general I don't have issues with his editing, but I don't see how this request is actually the next step in his dispute with LR. It's kinda like swatting a gnat with a grenade - it'll do the job but is really not efficient. I wish Coffman would be more willing to listen to other editors and compromise more and recognize that there CAN be other viewpoints on how much detail to include in an article and that just because another editor disagrees it doesn't mean they support eulogizing Nazis. Yes, Coffman's had a LOT of pushback, much of it probably not deserved. That some of this pushback is not deserved, however, does not mean that there aren't points where the pushback is correct. For Coffman's sake, I'd really rather they learn to distinguish between those people who really are trying to push a pro-Nazi viewpoint and those who disagree with what is and what isn't encyclopedic content. And I'm not seeing that LR is the worst offender on the pro-Nazi POV that Wikipedia has. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum to all the arbs, especially those voting to accept a wide case scope. Do you want to include the disputes currently happening at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)? Because, frankly, those are way worse than the stuff put forth in the case request and much more nasty editor behavior. I'd also point out to others that in Auntieruth's defense - they are not exactly active in the dramah boards. Their request for an assigned arb should really be understood as coming from someone who has no experience with ArbCom or its processes. In the real world, an arbitration committee could indeed assign someone to mediate a dispute. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

I'm generally uninvolved in WW2 history disputes. I had some interaction on Talk:Panzer ace because I watch K.e.coffman's talk and there was a move dispute there a while back where I tried to help resolve a dispute by starting an RM for a user with less experience, and reverted there when LargelyRecyclable was in a content dispute involving content that Drmies had removed pinging as courtesy.

That being said, I'm commenting mainly because of Prüm's section above asking why K.e.coffman has filed it against LR. Well, to answer that, I think it is likely because the LargelyRecyclable account appears to have been created with the intent of harassing K.e.coffman. Their first mainspace edit was to tagbomb an article extensively worked on by K.e.coffman. They followed this up with their next mainspace edit a day later, proposing a merge of one of the GAs created by K.e.coffman, Rommel myth. They then taggbommbed Rommel myth, and edit warred over keeping the tagbomb: [16], [17] (note, I warned them about it, and further explained here).

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

These are just LR's first 48 hours worth of edits. Like Ealdgyth, I am generally sympathetic to K.e.coffman's work, though I recognize that that they can be controversial within the subject area, and without editing much in MILHIST, I'm not really familiar with the consensus there. That being said, it is certainly understandable why K.e.coffman feels LargelyRecyclable should be a party here and why they named them as such: the diffs above combined with Bish's shows a user who started with this account on Wikipedia with the intent of undoing the work on one specific user, and who had no problem restoring anonymous attacks on them. I haven't look further beyond the Rommel myth or Panzer aces pages (both being on my watchlist for different reasons), but the purpose of the committee is to consider behavior. Well, we have a user who created an account and followed another user around. Whether they are a valid clean start or not, it is something important to consider when viewing their subsequent behavior. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• @MPS1992: I'm assuming MastCell was referencing the fact that just a cursory review of the LargelyRecyclable account's first 48 hours of editing shows that the person behind the account specifically created the account to undo the work of one specific editor: K.e.coffman. If you want the diffs, see above. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

I am hearing two arguments being made for Arbcom to take this case:

1. The OP, which asserts long-term POV pushing
2. Tony Ballioni, who asserts long-term harassment.

I urge the committee to take this case.

With regard to #1, many people dispute whether advocacy editing or conflict of interest editing harms Wikipedia more. The argument is irresolvable because there is insufficient data. But both are harmful and both are behavior issues. The community has a very, very hard time with long-term POV pushing as there is no good forum in which to lay out the pattern and have people see it. ANI gets derailed way too easily. But long-term POV pushing is demonstrable and this is the best forum in which to lay it out. The Wifione evidence page actually describes long-term POV pushing, and that case could have been made two years before the case was finally filed. This is a precedent that should be built on.

With regard to #2, harassment is a major concern of the community and movement more broadly and the preliminary evidence here is grounds to proceed.

I am not sure that the case name is appropriate, but that is what it is for now. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I am familiar with Coffman's "crusade" (which is to undo, as much as possible, the whitewashing of Nazi crimes from WW2 articles--a battle worth fighting, I believe); I had forgotten about the other user. I am of two minds. I wonder if ArbCom really needs to be called on to deal with this editor--I wonder if we can't just have a couple of admins look into this and make a decision, like, you know, an indef block or a topic ban, along with an interaction ban. In case I'm not clear: a complete topic ban for LR. Or ArbCom could figure out who is behind this cleanstart and make a judgement about that. Where there's this much smoke, there may well be fire. The other option, an argument for acceptance, is to look at the larger picture, but that involves a huge scope: MILHIST and its coverage of the German war machine, including questions about sourcing, weight, etc. I've been involved in a minor scuffle or two, and found that there's plenty of editors there that don't actually understand history or historiography--a situation not dissimilar to the gun control issue a few years ago. The question is whether disruption has gotten to the point where a full case and possibly DS are necessary. I like to think not, but then again, we may well be slanted toward the Nazis and that's serious. I would encourage ArbCom to do a few things: a. chat and see what can be done to rectify a situation involving hounding and harassment by other means; b. chit-chat and figure out how cleanstart works here; c. see how much gumption there is for a case whose potential is possibly more than you want and certainly more than necessary to right this wrong. Good luck. And remember: there are bonafide editors who depend on your judgment and your willingness to maintain a safe editing environment. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• A reminder to Prüm, from one "foreigner" to another: I am both a scholar and an info-warrior at the same time. It's more fun that way. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• MPS1992, I am not sure what your contribution is supposed to do; perhaps it should be on the article talk page. At any rate, I had a look at a half dozen or more of them, and they seem fine to me. Your summaries, on the other hand, are not always accurate and don't seem to take into account the edit summaries that Coffman gave. To take just an obvious one: "removes a 1976 publication -- not clear why this is necessary"--well, as the edit summary indicates, the book is not cited, so it shouldn't be among the Works Cited. And this, "very strange addition", what's wrong with that? It's not strange--it's called a topic sentence and does a good job of summarizing what follows. Moreover, the earlier sentence was the final sentence of a section that had nothing to do with the Rommel-Hitler relationship, and Coffman put it in the right place. I could go on, but I hope my point is clear--whatever you were trying to prove, you didn't do it with these diffs, which seem out of place in a request for arbitration. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Corrected a diff. With apologies. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• As a side note, I just ran into a colleague, a history professor, and mentioned to him that I (also) grew up believing the things about Rommel that I know now are part of the Rommel myth. He says "none of the Wehrmacht officers deserve exoneration". I see that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rommel myth/1, started by LargelyRecyclable, is still "open" (yeah, scare quotes), with the only substantive comment coming from someone who acknowledges not being a historian. Nick-D has something to say about LR's tag bombing. I haven't checked all of the history, but I don't see much evidence that MILHIST (sorry, broad brush, I know) has had many contributions to this GA; I hope I'm wrong. But what I note, as I did with Panzer ace, is that there is a great discrepancy between two sets of editors, to put it mildly. Wikipedia should do its utmost to prevent the mythologizing of historical characters, particularly Nazis. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I have brought many cases to arbitration. This one looks very much like the past pattern of cases where arbitration was beneficial. Noticeboards are unsuitable for dealing with persistent advocacy or COI editing. What's needed here is a deep inspection that only arbitration can provide. The most egregious offenders, if any, could be sanctioned, and a discretionary sanction could be issued that identifies the problematic editing pattern, and allows further sanctions as needed.

No doubt there are Nazi apologists on Wikipedia. We have all flavors of cranks and kooks. We must never ignore them. We must remain vigilant to root out the corruption whenever it appears. This case appears to be such a problem. It's boundaries should be surveyed, and the offenders sanctioned. If a do-good-er has been overzealous in defense of Wikipedia, the solution is to bring in more help so that they aren't left to deal with the problem all alone. Arbitration is an excellent way to focus attention of uninvolved editors on a problematic area. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: "My position is that WP must find a middle ground in dealing with events of WW2..." No! Compromise is for opinions. On Wikipedia we are strictly dealing with facts. There is no compromising of facts. When there are different versions of the facts in reliable sources, we present all of them in relative proportion and explain who says what. Fringe views, such as those found in unreliable sources, get zero representation on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cinderella157

Statement length: 801 words - trim to 500 requested. Mdann52 (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC) I have read through all of the material and followed most but the most recent of links. From the evidence initially presented, I see nothing more than a polite but robust exchange of views: that is, up to the point of making the present request.

In both Hoepner and Leeb, I find that the insertion of war crime allegations (regardless of accuracy) disrupts the chronicle. It could be dealt with better. In the case of Leeb, there is a section on his trial but the section does not establish the basis of his guilt - a deficiency in the article that should be improved. I see the rationale in statements by LR per biographical significance and note that K.e.coffman has acted similarly in other articles. Every commander is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. That was, in part, the basis of the High Command Trial.

My position is that WP must find a middle ground in dealing with events of WW2 and particularly biographies IMO - that is, a position that does not glorify or apoligise (on the one hand) but which does not vilify without substance (in the case of individuals as opposed to the regime).

Ke makes many productive edits but there are quite a number that clearly result in conflict and disruption of the project. I do not agree with all of the edits made by LR and cited by Ke. However, I have seen Ke make edits much of the kind he attributes to LR as evidence of LR's misconduct.

Ke has an agenda which is certainly at least alluded to (if not patently clear) - that is, to correct a great wrong as to how WP portrays Nazi Germany. I have observed that Ke applies a well rehearsed process which is systematically applied to reduce or remove articles. Part of this process is to discredit sources and to then strike all material that may rely on such sources regardless of the nature. My observation would be that Ke's POV is as at least as extreme as what he claims to redress.

I find it very difficult not to see this as a case of WP:POT and note (extending the analogy) that Ke has been in the fire a lot longer. Ke has cited Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. The time frame referred to in that case is particularly relevant to my observation of time. In respect to the principles listed therein, I see almost every one that might be to the conduct of Ke.

I would draw attention to World War II reenactment, its history since 2016, when it was greatly reduced and the two most recent discussions (sections) on the talk page. Ke refers to WP:NOTCENSORED in justification of his actions. I would also refer to War in History (book series) and the talk for my recent deletion of a section that reviewed one book in the series (that by Babette Quinkert). I noted that another review gave quite a different outlook of the book but had not been cited.

On the matter alluded to as WP:OUT. I believe that I am aware of the substance of what is alluded to. I became aware of this quite independently. Both this and Ke's user page here are quite disturbing. I also found his recent article in the Bugle to be quite disturbing, partly because his allegations lacked verifiability. Ke has referred to reliable and questionable sources. I would observe the maxim: history is written by the victor. I would also observe that every writer, regardless of their pedigree, brings a degree of bias to their work, which they deal with in ways which are either more or less than effective.

On the substantial allegation made against LR, it is difficult for me to see how the actions of LR meet the standard of the allegation, simply because the two editors disagree on where the point of neutrality lies. I doubt this is the place to deal with a content dispute, given the other processes. I doubt that LR should be singled out for being concerned with some of the edits by Ke. If so, I would suggest that many in MilHist should be concerned for similar charges simply because they disagree with Ke to any extent. On the otherhand, this particular course of action by Ke does give cause for concern, which I believe should be given full consideration.

I note that without substantiation, that my comments might be construed as personal attacks against Ke. I sincerely believe that I am in a position to elaborate and provide such evidence necessary to substantiate same. To close, I link Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Great Purge and Night of the Long Knives Nazi book burnings. To close, I link the novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and the proverb, The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (original preserved) At the suggestion of User:The ed17, I have restructured my statement in an attempt to improve clarity. I have not changed the content, save to remove a redundant sentence and some minor copy edits. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved from GreenMeansGo's section. Mdann52 (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: By way of transparency, I have added a post to this initial notification to make it a little clearer why this might benefit from input from project members. I believe that I have done so in a way that maintains neutrality. I ping @GMG and @user: LargelyRecyclable _{(out of courtesy, noting that I have already pinged K.e.coffman at the post)}. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• @User:MastCell refers to my quoting: "history is written by the victor".[18] I did so in the context of sources (not specifically WW2) in that it is a well established general warning about bias (that being my point). I elaborate, in the sentence that followed, on the subject of bias. That MastCell has taken this statement out of its fuller context and construed it as they have, evidences the very point I sought to make. Their same diff: "[LR] is obviously a returning editor abusing our 'clean start' policy." But this diff by them (already indicated by Ke): "ArbCom has definitively chosen to identify this as a legitimate clean-start account". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I apologise for my oversight in neglecting to identify my status as a MilHist Coord. I have thanked @User:Bishonen for their note and that they "didn't want any arb to miss ... [my closing links] ... either".[19][20] Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @User:MastCell, I did link to World War II reenactment. In doing so, I also referred to its history since 2016, when it was greatly reduced and the two most recent discussions (sections) on the talk page. While the earlier of the two discussions was with respect to a move, there were concerns I would characterise as WP:weight expressed by myself and others. Quoting @User:SMcCandlish: The general community intent does not appear to be for this page to have such a narrow scope.[21] Ke even acknowledged that there were weight and POV issues at the time of the move discussion.[22] He nonetheless reverted on 7 April.[23] His talk page post per this revision concluded with: Please let me know if there are any concerns.[24] I reverted the article,[25] with replies to the talk page reiterating previous concerns of WP:COATRACK[26] and WP:WEIGHT[27]. I indicated to Ke that the earlier discussion gave substance to my concerns and established (IMO) a consensus. Ke responded: The discussion above was about the article name; not the content in question.[28] Seeing potential for this to escalate, I made a neutral notification on the MilHist talk page[29] and advised of this on the articl's talk page.[30] Ke and LR made penultimate[31] and ultimate[32] reversions respectively. This is not a full and complete chronology of events and the full history should be consulted for absolute accuracy. User:MastCell[33] has alledged I "tag-teamed" They fail to report the involvement of @User:Neutrality. They have not accurately represented the chain of events. They represent the reason for my reversion as: complain[ing] that the article paints people in an unflattering light just because they like to dress up as Waffen-SS. The link given by User:MastCell is in the earlier discussion - the context of time has been misrepresented. My actual statement was: At present, there is an implied syllogism that all members Waffen-SS re-enactment groups are racist neo-Nazis. This may be the case but it must be verified - not to mention the validity of such an hypothesis per Karl Popper. This is an objection well founded in logic and the rationale for my objection is quite different from the representation given by User:MastCell. I believe that the sequence of events and my actions have been grossly misrepresented. I believe that the comments and allegation are unsubstantiated. This is not the first instance in which User:MastCell has been cited for misrepresenting the comments by other editors here (see comment by @User:The ed17 and "selective" quoting of @Peacemaker67).[34] Note: I first came to this article as the result of a notification on the MilHist talk page by Ke[35] and have kept it on my watch list. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Responding to @User:Jehochman:[36] An enrty of birth in a registry is a fact (that the entry exists). Where the Battle of the Bulge occurred is a fact. Where an historic battle occurred may be subject to conjecture. Photographic evidence is usually accepted as fact, though, if I recall correctly, not all pictures of Douglas MacArthur were taken where they were purported to be. Any published source contains an element of synthesis and analysis. Even the barest of accounts carries with it elements of the writers perspectives and experiences. Any academic work has at its heart, the establishment or contradiction of a thesis by analysis of evidence and synthesis. In short, an academic work is the opinion of the author and a case for why their opinion should be held in high regard or higher regard than that of another academic. Hence, WP:NPOV or, as I have said, a middle ground. If one were to only rely on "fact", WP would be very bare. If we have a broader notion of "fact", then we can accept that certain things are reported in sources with little scope for subjectivity and are probably accurate (without proof of lying). We can discern what is opinion and what is "fact", or, at least, strive to do so. Your saying that WP has no place for fringe theories is incorrect. See WP:NPOV. Do not imply by this, that I am advocating "whitewashing" but point to the inaccuracy of your comment. Until Nicolaus Copernicus, the "fact" was that the sun revolved around the earth. Ask pretty much anybody today and they would respond, it is a "fact" that the earth revolves around the sun; however, a more enlightened person might respond that it is a matter of relativity and the position (nominal or real) of the observer. My understanding of Ke's position, is that he would discard any material derived from a source he concludes to be unreliable or questionable. My response is that the world is not always so black and white. I would also conclude that your criticism of my statement lacks substance, though it is perhaps, a misunderstanding. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen, your initial statement is based on a thread at Talk:Werner Mölders. You state: [You were] pointed to this exchange ....[37] It may have been appropriate to disclose that post here. At the centre of Bishonen's statement is an IP post in regard to the block imposed against Dapi89 as a result of a Boomerang proposal at ANI by Ke, archived here. A number of editors making statements here (not from MilHist), were involved. There are concerns raised in respect to Ke's conduct. These include a 4th RR shortly outside the 24hr period. For completeness, I link to Bischonen's post to my talk page and my response, detailing the basis of my concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad, I have not ignored your comments but struggled to find a clear and succinct way to respond. I have been engaging in a discussion with @TonyBallioni at my talk page and thank them here for that constructive and objective dialogue. I would hope that you (and others) take the time to read it. It should serve to clarify some matters but raises others not already touched on here. I will say here though, that your assumption of my intent was incorrect. You will note that I have struckout my original links and replaced them with links that I hope you find less controversial but; nonetheless, evocative. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Peacemaker67

I'm commenting here as a long-term Milhist coord, rather than as an admin. I roughly correspond with the views put forward by Cinderella157, and also with some aspects of Ealdgyth's comments. KEC has a very unique (battlegroundy) mindset in relation to several things, which regularly come to my attention via my (mainly WWII Yugoslav-oriented) watchlist. The first is deletion of anything that might seem laudatory about senior or celebrated German individuals of WWII, on a bunch of grounds which often revolve around the factors Ealdgyth mentions. Smelser and Davies seem to dominate KEC's worldview when it comes to Germany in WWII, and I'm not sure they are even widely accepted as authorities, so it is a quite unique POV. As in every area of life, people can be pre-eminent or successful as a commander of soldiers, as a pilot or even as an ordinary soldier, and also be a vile villain with respect to the laws that apply to their field, or a sympathiser with the dominant ideology of the time. You can be both, and be notable. Germans of WWII are particularly apropos in that respect, as many senior officers implemented heinous directives, but were the subject of positive propaganda during the war, and some of that laudatory content has spilled over into post-war accounts. I have no doubt that there are those on WP who seek to mythologise German commanders and highly decorated people, without noting their transgressions. That is not right either. Yet many were also highly skilled pilots, generals and admirals, whose military exploits and details of their careers are notable. KEC has a POV which now has long-term data, which seeks to limit mentions of significant military achievement, or even of basic biographical information, yet seeks to ensure that every mention of breaches of the laws of war is detailed. All of that information should be included, it should not be limited to just the breaches of the laws of war, or the sympathy for the dominant ideology of the time. It should include their family details, schooling, what military academy they went to, and how they deftly (or not) directed their troops in both offensive and defensive operations. I cannot speak for LR, who edits rarely and with whom I have had little contact. It is quite possible that LR is a dubious clean start of another editor, but that is just an unsubstantiated allegation at this stage. If this is about whether KEC comes here with clean hands, or has a POV to push which will be facilitated by a topic ban on LR, the answers are no and yes. I have been here before with a matter which resulted in a long-term topic ban for the editor involved, and given KEC's own conduct, I just don't think this is close to meriting ArbCom sanction without evidence of a non-compliant clean start. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to my comments being cherry-picked and misrepresented by MastCell and others. Unlike many commenting here, I have a clear track record of creating content, including Featured content, that highlights crimes committed by the Wehrmacht and other forces of Nazi Germany and their allies, within my area of interest, Yugoslavia. I have demonstrated through my editing that I am no friend of those that seek to glorify Nazi's or whitewash Nazi crimes. The FA Kragujevac massacre is a recent example of my NPOV work in this area, as is the FA Gottlob Berger. The sort of inaccurate generalisations about the Milhist project made by some display an ignorance that doesn't help bring this matter any closer to conclusion. Regardless of what appear to be quite laudable motives, KEC has consistently demonstrated a sophisticated type of civil POV-pushing and wikilawyering behaviour rarely seen by me in seven years on WP, and I work mainly in an area where POV pushing is endemic, WWII in Yugoslavia. KEC continues to assiduously delete relevant biographical material and sources they personally consider non-RS, right across the project, under various spurious rationale such as "unnecessary level of detail", despite having been told time and time again what an appropriate level of detail for a military biography is, based on long experience of generating comprehensive Featured biographical content by the members of the project. KEC appears to have a complete tin ear on this issue, which naturally causes friction with other editors who tire of having to revert deletions and explain over and over again. There are also disagreements on the quality of various sources and what, if any, of the information they contain can be used. Have there been mistakes in accepting a some dubious and entirely laudatory sources in the past? Sure, and you'd be hard-pressed to find many members of the project that would disagree. But much of this has happened at GAN which is not a Milhist process at all. Those mistakes do not justify tag-bombing and butchering perfectly good articles that just need more careful source selection and use, and as The ed17 notes elsewhere, a greater focus on the social context in which the individual carried out their military duties, including the extent of their demonstrated sympathy with Nazism (the dominant ideology), and their words and actions relevant to Nazi atrocities. Frankly, LR doesn't even edit that much, and this just looks like a blatant attempt to get rid of someone who opposes KEC's editing behaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dimadick

While not a member of WikiProject Military history, I often do work on World War II-relevant articles and categories. Back in 2016 I took part in a discussion concerning User:K.e.coffman's agenda as an editor and whether it raises POV concerns. I have also worked to improve some articles he created, like The Myth of the Eastern Front. While I still have doubts concerning his objectivity as an editor, coffman is quite correct that several of our World War II articles were either using unreliable sources or misrepresenting the available sources.

I am not really familiar with User:LargelyRecyclable, but much of his/her recent edit history seems to be devoted to content disputes with coffman. For an editor who rarely signs in Wikipedia, I find this rather peculiar. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This really does look like an extremely effective campaign of civil POV pushing. I have long since sold off my large collection of WWII books, but the idea of the "clean Wehrmacht" is absolutely not supported by the consensus in mainstream scholarship and the "aces" stuff is cringeworthy. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Auntieruth

Like Peacemaker, I'm commenting here as a long-term Milhist coord. Similarly, I mostly agree with the views posed by Cinderella157, and also with some aspects of Ealdgyth's comments. Similarly, I don't understand why LargelyRecyclable has been brought here. That said, though, there is a long term problem of content dispute/editing practice that the Milhist project has been unable to resolve. Every time I think it's settled, it comes up again in another article and we debate the same features again.

Undoubtedly several WWII articles should to be updated to include some newer sources: I don't agree that KeCoffman is the one to do it. Project coordinators have become involved to head off or close edit wars and/or content disputes stemming from K.e.coffman's editing/tagging/skilled wikilawyering. KEC's activities an editor do raise significant POV concerns regarding not only his assertion of a project-wide point of view (please correct me if I've mistaken this), versus KEC's point of view. In Hans-Ulrich Rudel , I reverted the article to its last point of consensus; Coffman reverted it back to his last point of agreement.

Second, we run into the "level of intricate detail" problem. KEC's edits, as Ealdgyth has pointed out, remove detail sometimes (often) to the point at which articles miss important details (year of entering the Luftwaffe, etc.) As a proponent of Thick description, my methodology employs more description, not less, with the intention to contextualize the subject. For example, understanding that a subject was the son of a farmer, attended normal school, etc., establishes a starting point at which an ordinary boy becomes an extraordinary pilot/killer. These are important "details" to present, regardless of whether one subscribes to the Daniel Goldhagen or the Christopher Browning school of thought. See See Moelders case .

Third, while there is indeed a great deal of new literature on WWII, in particular on activities in the eastern front and generally concerns over POV are legitimate in some cases. New research coincides in part with the loosening of archival access in the old Soviet bloc and also with simply the passing of a generation of historians trying to come to terms with a heinous conflagration, Cold War necessities, and historical memory. As an historian of Germany, I'm deeply concerned about KEC's post on The Bugle in that it is unverifiable. I have no doubt that he has quoted his sources correctly, however there are several quotes from prominent historians that may or may not be taken out of context; furthermore, we don't know what KEC wrote to these historians that generated these responses. Regardless, new research does not automatically supplant old research. Some sources remain important. See Wehrmachtbericht.

Finally, if not here, where? I would not be adverse to this committee assigning an arbitration coordinator (or some other person) to work with the project on resolving this issue, and I would be happy to work with someone on this. auntieruth (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MastCell wrote below User:Auntieruth55's statement implies that they are the owners of this topic area, and the ultimate arbiters of appropriate content and conduct. S/he writes: "project coordinators have become involved to head off or close edit wars and/or content disputes" involving K.e.coffman. It's not really the role of WikiProject coordinators to arbitrate edit-wars, particularly when the coordinators themselves are involved in the dispute; this resembles tag-teaming rather than dispute resolution.

• I would like to point out that project coordinators have become involved in some of the edit conflicts not as arbitrators but as calm voices trying to resolve questions of content and sources, of trying to develop consensus on how questions of sourcing and editing should be addressed, and to resolve some of these issues, all within the coordinator remit. This occurs within the project's review process, especially at A class review, but also in promoting articles to B class. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm rather startled by this statement from MastCell: in responding to this, MastCell writes Auntieruth55 complains that s/he has "noticed, also, a very pro-Soviet leaning emerging in [the Nazi military biographies]", which is... just bizarre, as a response to a well-reasoned criticism that Coffman did, after all, publish in a reputable journal as well as here on Wikipedia. My statement was, in fact, a comment on the dangers of bias on all sides. For example, as additional sources are opened we can see examples of horrendous behavior on all sides. This is not to use the Charlottesville excuse, but rather to highlight that historical archives open new sources all the time to research, and we learn new things as these open. My approach to editing in most of these articles (and I served predominantly as copy editor/grammarian) is to ask the editors to place activities into context so that we avoid the various myths attached to the past, not to perpetuate them. If there is a standard bias toward the German side, is the proper solution to replace it with a bias toward the Soviet side? auntieruth (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• apologies to MastCell....I pinged Mastcell... :( auntieruth (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Link by JJE

AN/ANI/3RR threads where K.e.coffman is mentioned, including one dedicated to them. A lot of these are not about K.e.coffman, however, seems like. Nothing by LargelyRecyclable save for two discussions that weren't about them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

While I am not deeply conversant with the subject, due to familial connections I have some experience with similar issues on the Japanese side (e.g., we have in our collection a pair of pamphlets from the US military: "Our Enemy Japan" and (post-war) "Japan Our Friend and Ally").

In the article mentioned at the outset, I'm seeing problems on both sides. Hoepner's personal order is laid out in the body of the article in the competing versions; his participation in the 20 July plot is historiographically inconvenient in that, on the one hand, it lumps him in with a group with a decidedly mixed set of motives, but on the other, prevented his crimes from being gone over during the war crimes trials; both perhaps protected him from some of the reproach directed at those who survived. All of that said, what I see comes across as an edit war in which neither version is satisfactory, and which comes across as something of a personal struggle on the part of both participants. In particular I don't get a picture of how historians have viewed Hoepner's own order in relation to those promulgated from above him: does it differentiate him, or not?

I'm seeing the same sort of pattern in the other cases that have been referred to: K.e.coffman's response to these problems tends to be reversion to a preferred version, rather than any attempt to work with the material at hand. This places me in another problem position as I tend to feel that the level of detail in a lot of our articles is excessive for an encyclopedia; at the same time I see something to the complaint that he tends to lose neutral content in the course of his reversions. that, and the editorial, tend to cast him as something of a crusader who is letting the cause get in the way of more ordinary editing concerns.

That said, I share his uneasiness about tendentious editing on these articles, and about the motivations of his opponents in these conflicts. I'm particularly concerned about the continued efforts to include the work of Franz Kurowski, who is surely too problematic to resort to in a field where there is abundant research. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MPS1992

I think others have mentioned Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing -- much though I dislike citing essays. Since I spent a little time looking them up, here are some things to look at, related to that.

• [38] removed "exhausted remnants of"
• [39] removed a direct quote and reference to a 1998 book
• [40] added "second-rate" regarding French forces fighting Rommel in 1940
• [41] removed how the article subject died as being "unneeded level of detail in the lead; add per source to the body" -- the addition to the body does not restore the material removed from the lede
• [42] makes a rather odd removal of a word to imply something slightly different, while not fixing the obvious huge grammatical problem right next to the word he removed
• [43] swaps out reliable sources from 2004 and 1998, in favour of preferred source from 1950. With misleading edit summary "C/e for concision and take out explanatory note"
• [44] very strange addition of "a close and genuine, if complicated, personal relationship"
• [45] removes a 1976 publication -- not clear why this is necessary
• [46] removal of a direct quotation from a 1964 reliable source -- perhaps could be justified, but emblematic of the POV-washing that targets a viewpoint that is regarded as needing removal. Related reliable sources for same content were books from 1999 and 2008
• [47] not at all clear why this is necessary!
• [48] carefully removes a 2013 source, although admittedly it is only the WP:DAILYMAIL
• [49] trims quote from Rommel about a commander's responsibility to his men -- removes two entire sentences
• [50] removes [self-cited] statement that Rommel "urged the Axis authorities to treat occupied people like the Arabs with the utmost respect to prevent uprisings behind the front". The overall sources for "Justice is the indispensable foundation of a nation" was from 2002.

These are from a less than two-week period from a single article, out of many many articles over what is now a long-running campaign. Any full scale case would end up with thousands of diffs of the sort of editing that is problematic.

As regards historians who have been contacted and offered views, whose views are apparently available in private -- will the Arbitration Committee also be provided with a list of those historians who were not contacted, for example those writing in 1976, 1998, 2002, 2004 or 2013 (mentioned above) whose views might not fit in with this new orthodoxy? MPS1992 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mastcell: a major contributor to these articles is, to all appearances, inappropriately using an alternate account to harass an editor Who is this major contributor? MPS1992 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

A couple of brief points:

• Assuming K.e.coffman accurately represents his discussions with prominent historians (the Committee can verify this off-wiki), there is a serious problem here. I can't over-emphasize this. If a number of reputable mainstream historians find our coverage of the Nazi military inappropriately sympathetic, then we need to ask some hard questions about the editing environment and find a way to fix it.
• As TonyBallioni points out, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs) is obviously a returning editor abusing our "clean start" policy. He came here with a specific goal: to target K.e.coffman's contributions and block or undo his edits. That much is evident from his contribution history. Genuinely new accounts don't behave like this; nor do legitimate "clean starts". I blocked him as such; ArbCom unblocked him, presumably on the basis of some representations they received from him. Nonetheless, I find it deeply inappropriate that an editor can hide behind an alternate account to target and harass another editor in this fashion.
• The Military History WikiProject has a stellar record of producing high-quality content, but its role in this particular dispute is a bit concerning. User:Auntieruth55's statement implies that they are the owners of this topic area, and the ultimate arbiters of appropriate content and conduct. S/he writes: "project coordinators have become involved to head off or close edit wars and/or content disputes" involving K.e.coffman. It's not really the role of WikiProject coordinators to arbitrate edit-wars, particularly when the coordinators themselves are involved in the dispute; this resembles tag-teaming rather than dispute resolution. Auntieruth55 also offers that s/he "would not be adverse to this committee assigning an arbitration coordinator (or some other person) to work with the project on resolving this issue, and I would be happy to work with someone on this." Given that the topic area appears to contain problematic content (as assessed by outside experts) that was developed under the WikiProject's oversight, I don't see the value of assigning an ArbCom liaison to MILHIST as if it were a disinterested, co-equal partner in resolving this dispute.
• Some of the language here, from MILHIST coordinators, is a bit disturbing. User:Cinderella157 repeats, here, that "history is written by the victors". In the context of WWII and Nazi war crimes, this truism is alarming, because it suggests that the well-documented crimes against humanity committed by the Wehrmacht were simply fabrications or exaggerations imposed on a defeated enemy. (It's also historically ignorant, given that the official US Army history of World War II relied significantly on input from Franz Halder, Hitler's chief of OKH, but I digress).
• User:Peacemaker67 repeatedly downplays the Nazism of Wehrmacht commanders as mere "sympathy for the dominant ideology of the time", ignoring the fact that many Wehrmacht commanders were not merely passively sympathetic but rather enthusiastic Nazis, and also ignoring the fact that Nazism would not have become the "dominant ideology of the time" without significant support from the German military.

So I see at least three issues here warranting Arbitration: 1) our articles on Nazi military figures are inappropriately sympathetic and bowdlerized, according to outside/real-world experts, 2) a major contributor to these articles is, to all appearances, inappropriately using an alternate account to harass an editor trying to address this problem, and 3) the WikiProject leadership involved in these articles is skewed and non-representative in terms of their viewpoints on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: You write that MILHIST coordinators "have become involved in some of the edit conflicts not as arbitrators but as calm voices trying to resolve questions of content and sources..." Could you provide some examples where you believe you played a calming, constructive role with regard to K.e.coffman? At a glance, here's what I see:

• Here, you berate Coffman and insist that Wehrmacht propaganda should be considered a reliable source ("Is propaganda necessarily false? ABSOLUTELY NOT.") You also suggest that Nazi propaganda is no less useful than material from the London Times or New York Times. I don't view this as calming or constructive.
• Here you revert Coffman's edits and criticize him for failing to clear them with you pre-emptively—a canonical ownership behavior, and evidence of a self-appointed arbitrator mentality.
• At World War II reenactment, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs) removes a great deal of properly sourced material (about the unsavory side of reenactment), leaving behind only the apologetics; his edit is ostensibly "prep for proper sourcing and expansion", although to my knowledge no such expansion ever takes place. Cinderella157 (talk · contribs), a MILHIST coordinator, jumps in to keep the content out, in tandem with LargelyRecyclable, and complains that the article paints people in an unflattering light just because they like to dress up as Waffen-SS (!)

  LargelyRecyclable again removes the content, citing "Consensus both here and from discussion at MILHIST"; I see no such consensus in either place. Did the MILHIST coordinator provide "calming", objective input here? It looks more to me like they tag-teamed with LargelyRecyclable to remove properly sourced content on fairly flimsy grounds.

• Here, Auntieruth55 complains that s/he has "noticed, also, a very pro-Soviet leaning emerging in [the Nazi military biographies]", which is... just bizarre, as a response to a well-reasoned criticism that Coffman did, after all, publish in a reputable journal as well as here on Wikipedia.

I'd like to believe that the MILHIST coordinators have been functioning as calm voices and dispassionate mediators, but these examples don't bear that out. Of course, I came up with these from a cursory review of articles mentioned here; if there are counter-examples, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I am extremely interested in ArbCom's identification to MastCell of LargelyRecyclable as being a "legitimate" clean start, which lead to MastCell's unblock of them back in December. Specifically, what seems pertinent is whether the previous account edited in the subject area currently under discussion. If they did, then the "clean start" cannot, by definition, be "legitimate", and MastCell's block of LR should be reinstated. This is information known only to ArbCom, so I would appreciate one of the arbs confirming the legitimacy of the clean start.

I would also associate myself with MastCell's comments about the statements made here by MILHIST coordinators, which, when I read them, gave me pause, as they seemed biased and perhaps historically questionable. We should also bear in mind that the question of whether the Wehrmacht was "clean" or not, or whether there was enthusiasm for Nazism or mere acquiescence to it within its leadership is not so much a military history question as it is a social and political history question. Yes, it certainly involves a military organization, but it doesn't involve battles, strategy or tactics but a socio-political circumstance. So, while their opinions are certainly worthwhile to know and should be taken into account, they shouldn't be considered as being the last word on this particular subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Question to @Coretheapple: When you say you are disturbed by KEC's and Assayer's statements here, do you mean that you are disturbed that they would say such things, or that you are disturbed about the issues they have brought to our attention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17

I'd like to open by speaking more generally about the state of military history as a field and how that affects Wikipedia. Military history often falls into the trap of focusing on purely military aspects (like orders of battle, statistics, generals, etc) to the detriment of other topics, like their political and social contexts. Our article on it hints at this, with the full quote reading that one of the serious problems in the field today is "a technological bias in explaining military capability, and a fascination with technology in accounting for military developments." Another is "a lack of focus on political 'tasking' in the setting of force structures, doctrines and goals, and in the judging of military success." (Jeremy Black, Rethinking Military History [New York: Routledge, 2004], ix.)

Some of this has been changing in academic military history for a few decades now, but much has not been reflected in popular or traditional works. And as those are the sources that tend to focus on more limited topics, like a single infantry division from the First World War, these biases filter down into Wikipedia. Put slightly differently, articles often focus on purely military aspects because that's what tracks with the available reliable sources on the topic. Several editors are aware of the problem and do their best to mitigate it in the articles they write, but it's a trap that many, including me, have and continue to fall into.

All that might give some context as to why some military history articles—including those about the Second World War and Nazi Germany—are laser-focused on army strength, what equipment they were carrying, and where they were deployed.

Moving to the requested case, the admittedly few example discussions I've read (and the statements above) give me the feeling that this is a unusually widely scoped content dispute, of which one part could boil down to how you personally interpret WP:BIASEDSOURCES. I'm somewhat skeptical of Arbcom's chances of untangling content from conduct here, which is a nod to the complexity of this potential case and not an indictment on the committee's capabilities. What this topic could really benefit from is an uninvolved mediator willing to do a somewhat staggering sum of reading, and that's not something Arbcom can mandate.

Last, and separately from all else, Ealdgyth's statement is worth reading, as she carries the experience of reworking our article on the Holocaust last year.

(Disclaimers: I've written a fair amount of military history in my time on Wikipedia, but with only one exception I've avoided Nazi Germany. I have not closely followed this long-running dispute, and I don't believe I've commented on it before. I'm a current and past Milhist coordinator, though greater than predicted time constraints have prevented me from being anything more than a name on a page so far, and I don't see my project membership as a conflict of interest.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: When editing your statement to get it below the word limit, you might consider trying to make it clearer as well. As of writing, it's all over the place and difficult to understand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I was rather hoping you'd take the opportunity to also redact your final sentence with all the links, per Newyorkbrad in the arb section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: I would submit that you're selectively quoting Peacemaker67. The statement, when read in full, makes it clear that he's not actively attempting to downplay the beliefs of Nazi Germany's military commanders. You might complain about some of the phrases he's used, but it's a rather large leap to extrapolate from that to him holding a "skewed" perspective on the entire war. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Chris troutman

(Non-administrator comment) This is a content issue, for which Wikipedia is just as unprepared now as it was ten years ago. It is not within ARBCOM's remit to adjudicate source material about the "clean Wehrmacht" hypothesis. However, I have complained in the past about K.e.coffman's de-Nazification campaign. As other editors have said, K.e.coffman seems to have taken this cause up as a crusade and this editing behavior is inappropriate, regardless if the cause is just. Further, if LargelyRecyclable has abused a clean start then the community cannot tolerate that act; it calls into question why we allow clean starts, at all. ARBCOM should look into these patterns of behavior without concern to the content issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This is not a criticism at all of its author, but it is in response to the statement above "In the real world, an arbitration committee could indeed assign someone to mediate a dispute." Policy does allow some leeway in that regard for this committee: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images occurred precisely because of remedies the ctte adopted and the ctte should definitely consider being even more forthright in that regard, even if it takes some new creativity in drafting the language of a motion or remedy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D

Just briefly, while I've been concerned about LargelyRecyclable's conduct in the past, I don't think that this matter really requires ArbCom intervention. As some editors have noted above, there are a range of similar discussions on talk pages regarding Nazi Germany's war effort (I've taken part in a few). However, these are largely civil content disputes. K.e.coffman has uncovered highly concerning material in Wikipedia articles, and I've also been involved in removing similar material, and generally the process has been uncontroversial. The underlying issue about the use of dated or possibly unreliable sources is significant, and is something which professional historians of this era grapple with given that there's been something of a revolution in the historiography of the Nazi war effort, and World War II more generally, since the 1990s (for instance. modern populist professionally-published histories tend to be referenced to old works, while more academic histories tend to be referenced to new works). The fact that the prestigious Society for Military History published an article by K.e.coffman on this topic says quite a bit about the significance of the issue. K.e.coffman has at times engaged in excessive zeal, but does seek to explain and discuss their edits. The other editors involved largely do the same - this has led to some huge talk page discussions, but not much edit warring, etc.

Some kind of centralised discussion of how to treat dated or possibly-unreliable references on the Nazi German military would be very helpful, but I don't think that arbitration is the place for it - especially as there are not any systematically bad editor conduct problems,. I was involved in the arbitration case concerning the World War II article, and it was an unsuccessful process - what was actually a clear-cut problem with a single editor's conduct (as ArbCom concluded) ended up having to be resolved through an examination of the article and all the editors involved. This was a massive time sink, and not a good use of the Committee's time, or the time of the editors involved. I'd suggest some kind of large scale RfC to settle the historiography-related issues, and the editor conduct issues be handled by admins.

If it's helpful in assisting ArbCom to frame this case, I'd note that I filled a SPI report concerning LargelyRecyclable which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makumbe/Archive. A checkuser judged that the connection here was 'unlikely' (presumably largely on technical grounds), but I still believe that the behavioural evidence is very strong. I'd also note that the diffs there indicate the kind of harassment directed at K.e.coffman and others by some editors (the Panzer ace article developed a toxic editing environment as a result) Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion made by User:Robert McClenon, I'd strongly encourage ArbCom to not consider the scope of this case to be the entire historiography of World War II. This is a vast topic and, writing as someone who has been very active in Wikipedia's coverage of the topic since 2005, there are not any systematic problems which reach across it. I don't even think that there are systematic problems regarding the topic of Germany's war effort as discussed in this request, given that in most of the articles affected by this particular matter it has been resolved through reasonably civil talk page discussions, etc. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Assayer

I contribute mainly to the German Wikipedia. For years I refrained from contributing to the English Wikipedia, because I found the field of Nazi German history including the German war effort to be misrepresented. A bulk of articles, many of them peer reviewed for excellence, struck me as a "gallery of heroes", based mainly on fringe militaria literature, memoirs, extremist and revisionist publications or even on outright Nazi propaganda (e.g. the Wehrmachtbericht). Each and every "ace's" victory was recorced in the most minute detail. "Skilled leadership" and "extreme battlefield bravery" were emphasized. When I did start contributing I found some editors connected with the MilHist project not very receptive to criticism. Instead accusations of campaigning and tag-teaming with K.e.Coffman came quickly. But to be clear: This is not about content but about representation, imagery and POV. As David Stahel has pointed out in his book on Operation Barbarossa (Cambridge UP 2009), it is well known that, in contrast to German historiography, Anglo-American military histories tend to portray the German generals of WWII as mere professionals. By separating military performance from political and ideological actions, Stahel argues, too many favourable judgements were passed. (p. 443, emphasis added) Such judgements (POV) are also characteristic, maybe inadvertently, maybe intentional, for the English Wikipedia. Thereby no Nazi sympathies are expressed and no crimes are denied. On the contrary, that POV is essentially anti-Nazi, but it is also biased when it comes to describe who the Nazis actually were.

As to LR in particular, their work first came to my notice when they expressed their "shock" about the "very existence" of the article at Talk:Rommel myth#This article is a classic case of synthesizing and content forking a coat rack. Suggest immediate redirect.. I commented on their article Talk:Helmuth Groscurth when it was nominated for GA. While as of today [51] they did not correct wrong citations and missing page numbers, they found time to remove material for allegedly missing page numbers elsewhere[52]. This strikes me as double standard. If I randomly pick another edit, e.g. [53] I find them reinserting information sourced to Heinz Guderian's memoirs, mainly reiterating the story that the Wehrmacht was constantly hindered by orders from Hitler with whom they disagreed. As military historian Russell Hart points out in his Guderian: Panzer Pioneer or Mythmaker? (2006), p. 96-7, despite of what Guderian wrote in his memoirs, his disagreements with Hitler were episodic and temporary and gradually increased only over time. Historical research has firmly established that the military elite of Nazi Germany constructed a deliberately biased account of the Battle of Moscow by arguing that the German offensive only failed because of Hitler, the winter (weather) and Soviet reinforcements from Siberia. LR apparently thinks that such arguments make an article more informative. LR is right in that they inserted material demonstrating how certain senior Army officers encouraged murder, e.g. underlining the extent of Walther Reichenau's participation in the Holocaust [54] But with the very same edit they diminish the responsibility of units under Reichenau's command for the massacre at Babi Yar. Historical research demonstrated that Reichenau "and some of his men had been actively involved. Infantry divisions of the sixth army had helped arrest and confine Jews, and Reichenau had participated in a series of meetings where it seems the action was planned." (Doris L. Bergen, War and Genocide, 3rd. ed. 2016, p.201) In other words, Reichenau was not simply in charge of the area in which SS, Einsatzgruppen, and Ukrainian auxiliaries operated.--Assayer (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple

The statement made by K.e. Coffman is deeply disturbing, as is User:Assayer's directly above. The problems highlighted here not only do injury to researchers, especially students, in the topic area but also are a blot on Wikipedia. Arbcom should definitely take this case. Noticeboards are not the answer. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Sorry I wasn't clear. I am disturbed by the issues they raise and commend them for their statements, and I especially commend k.e. coffman for bringing this case. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

This is bizarre in the way that there is no real behavioral issue or even a direct content dispute here either. What K.e.coffman is alleging are systemic bias. It's like acknowledging that gender bias on Wikipedia exist, then ostracize just one person for it and open an ArbCom case. Also K.e.coffman's past behavior can perhaps indeed be called "crusade-like" and he has not always enjoyed community consensus (more on that later in the evidence section if this is opened). This has the potential to WP:BOOMERANG hard. --Pudeo (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Just for clarification, several people in comments above have reference a comment from Prüm which they removed here. Probably would have been better if they had struck it out rather than removed it. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: if you want to retract a comment after others have responded to it, it is always better to wrap the comment (or relevant part of it) using <s> ...</s>. Simply deleting it makes a nonsense of any responses to it. I got very confused with remarks made by Drmies, TonyBallioni etc because they were referring to something that did not appear to exist. That's why I provided the diff. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

One of the Arbs refers to the War of the Pacific arbitration as “somewhat unsatisfactory”. It may have been that, but for the ArbCom to take it, and then ask the WP:MILHIST project to address future issues about systemic bias and sources was better than the multiple failed trips that the principals were taking to RFM. (Better to try RFM than to go directly to ANI, but mediation only works when the parties collaborate with t he mediator.) I urged the ArbCom to accept that case, having seen that it was otherwise getting nowhere. I noted that the problem seems to be, as William Faulkner said about the American Civil War, the past isn’t dead, because it isn’t even past. World War Two is eighty years more recent than the American Civil War and more recent than the War of the Pacific.

I see that the ArbCom is about to accept this case, and I concur. I urge the ArbCom not to adopt any accelerated timetable, but to conduct a thorough evidentiary hearing to identify disruptive editing and POV-pushing. I also urge the ArbCom to conclude the case by imposing discretionary sanctions on World War Two historiography issues. (I’ve tried to mediate a WW-II historiography issue. They are difficult and frustrating.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

German war effort of 1939–45: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Added to template. Note we currently only have 9 active arbs, so 5 is a majority for this case at present. Sorry for a delay, we seem to be a tad short-staffed as clerks as well! Mdann52 (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• @K.e.coffman: Your request for an extension is granted, and your word limit is extended by the length of your replies to other users. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Standardised section headings. Amortias (T)(C) 11:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

German war effort of 1939–45: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We could use more input on this request and the underlying situation from subject-knowledgeable editors, who may not necessarily watchlist the arbitration pages. I would welcome suggestions on how we might best seek such input in an appropriate and neutral fashion. Statements could helpfully address whether we should accept this case, what its scope should be if accepted, and what resources or methods might be available to help us decide it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This request presages an exceptionally complex, sensitive, and difficult case. (For this reason, I would grant all reasonable requests for extensions of word limits.) Not for the first time I am concerned that different arbitrators voting to accept a case are not really voting to accept the same case. But defining the scope of any case at this stage is difficult because it is not yet clear where the line will fall between content disputes, which the ArbCom does not resolve, and conduct such as misuse of sources, which at some point becomes misconduct that we can address (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance). K.e.coffman's concerns about the articles we are discussing are set forth more clearly in his "Bugle" essay and on his userpage than they are in the request for arbitration, which seems artificially, if understandably, focused on one particular editor. I'm still considering my vote on accepting the case: Our articles in this topic-area could benefit from some form of review, I'm not convinced that ArbCom is the right forum for such a review, but Wikipedia has no editorial board. Finally, the links at the end of Cinderella157's opening statement are outrageous. Analogizing an on-wiki dispute to mass-murders by tyrannies would be inappropriate in any setting, and invoking a Nazi atrocity in the context of this specific case is particularly provocative and offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Shades of this somewhat unsatisfactory case re allegations of user conduct issues arising from historical source interpretation. Also awaiting more statements: without prejudging validity I'd be interested in how to define a case scope that didn't cross over into content disputes. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Accept to examine the editor conduct of k.e.coffman and LargelyRecyclable, and related editors. Disclaimer that this doesn't presuppose misconduct - merely that there are enough allegations in this thread to justify a review. "Decline" a wider case as something the Committee is not well placed to resolve. There's clearly a very substantial question to be answered on bias or otherwise in WWII articles - but it will need detailed source analysis, some extended back and forth between editors and considerable time for semi-expert discussion, and I don't see Arbcom's cumbersome structures as best placed to do this justice. For what it's worth I like the idea of one or more arbitrators/administrators/experienced editors being formally assigned to carry out this analysis over the medium term and then report back; that way we'd be presented with neutral recommendations on the topic and could decide if we wanted to give them some teeth. But a meaningful review of subtle content bias across a large subset of WWII articles is not something we're likely to do well in the confines of a six-week Arbcom case, and not something simply resolved with yet another discretionary sanctions regime. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @LargelyRecyclable: See this thread re attempted hacking. I don't think it's related to this case request, or World War II editors. But we seem to be having a pause anyway, while we glacially discuss case scope. -- Euryalus (talk)
• @LargelyRecyclable: From what we know of the password-hacking attempts, they would be unrelated to anyone contacting OberRank's employer. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• What I haven't seen in the statements so far is a satisfactory explanation of why ArbCom needs to be the one to handle this. Obviously we are unable to decide on content disputes, and that definitely seems to be the basis for this case. Of course, I'm willing to be corrected. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  I'm satisfied that there are longstanding problems, I'm not certain that Arbcom will necessarily be able to find solutions, but perhaps with some rigorous community input at the workshop, we stand a chance. Care must be taken to ensure that our decision doesn't breach in to content handling though. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with WTT. Where is he attempt to handle this at ANI or another community venue for handling behavioral issues? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• I know there are ANI threads somewhere that have either been brought by KEC or are about him (or both). I’d like to see links to some of those so I can read further. Katie^talk 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept to examine sourcing issues surrounding biographies of Nazis and the behavior of editors in this area. There is likely to be private evidence here, including the letters written to historians by K.e. coffman and the acceptance of a clean start account that was apparently done during the last Arbcom election. I don’t see how further ANI sections will help; I think the community is unable to solve this problem and it’s time for us to step in. I’m open to further refinement of the case scope. Katie^talk 02:48, 24 Apri*l 2018 (UTC)
• Accept but with a wider case scope to include at least all WWII related military history as the problem is wider than simply biographies. auntieruth you mention long-standing problems, will this be wide enough? I'm afraid we'll have to disappoint you since we can't assign someone to work with the project as an Arbitrator, that's not within our remit. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Accept RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Acccept I agree with Doug about the scope. Some persistent problems at WP can be very closely related to content disputes. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Accept, to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history. I don't know that we have the mandate or the expertise to determine reliability of sources on a broad scale, however; it seems a little too close to a content issue for me. Like Katie, I'm also open to further tweaking of the scope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Accept, belatedly. I see the point above about a relative lack of prior dispute resolution, but I nevertheless think we should investigate this. Of all the types of disputes that arbcom handles, allegations of subtle POV-pushing in hot-button topic areas is one of those that benefits most from a careful inquiry taking place at a measured pace in a structured environment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)