Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:48, 21 May 2018

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by Nick-D - ArbCom: What is the scope of this case?

In accepting this case, several arbitrators stated that it needed to consider broad-ranging issues considering Wikipedia's coverage of World War II (for instance Doug Weller, accepted it with a "wider case scope to include at least all WWII related military history as the problem is wider than simply biographies", with DGG agreeing to this, and PMC accepted the case "to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history"). Other arbitrators accepted on the grounds that the case have a much tighter scope (for instance Euryalus accepted in order "to examine editor behavior/possible misconduct in the general area of WW2 military history" and Katie accepted "to examine sourcing issues surrounding biographies of Nazis and the behavior of editors in this are"). As these are quite different scopes - noting in regards to Doug's comments that Wikipedia's coverage of World War II is vast and involves all sorts of issues - could the Committee please provide guidance on what the scope of this case is? For instance, in preparing evidence, should I focus on the issues around the historiography of the German war effort, biographies of German military personnel only, or World War II as a whole? (which would involve roping lots more editors in - for instance, issues around Poland's and China's role in the war can be troublesome, but involve an almost totally different set of editors than the main parties in the request for arbitration). Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: The committee have explicitly not set a case scope, asking for wide-ranging evidence related to the case request. I think the main area of concern is editing related to the German war effort, but if you are aware of other significant misbehaviour in related areas then I would include it. Pinging the drafting Arbs @Alex Shih, Newyorkbrad, and Doug Weller: for further clarification. GoldenRing (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I entirely agree with Nick-D. A case without a properly determined scope is a recipe for a time-sink with no useful purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

I agree with Cinderella157's comments below. Without a scope, there is a real risk of editors having to defend themselves and potentially being subject to ArbCom findings and sanctions relating to a matter which is well below the thresholds of what the Committee usually looks into. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Peacemaker67's comments about the risk of this turning into a witch hunt. I deliberately structured the evidence I posted to try to avoid this (not least as I really don't think this matter needs ArbCom intervention), but there's a real risk of sprawl here. I could have posted complaints about a bunch of editors, but given that the issues were minor and peaked last year I really didn't want to. I'd suggest that this case be closed. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67

I entirely agree with Nick-D. A case without a properly determined scope is a recipe for a time-sink with no useful purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further. I'm very concerned about this case. This open scope approach is likely to result in two things: encourage a witch hunt against anyone who has ever written anything laudatory about German figures in WWII, and have a chilling effect on those who believe KEC's long-term tendentious editing behaviour in this area should be closely examined as part of the case. If you really want to prosecute an investigation into this area, decide on a proper scope before you start, otherwise you will likely not get evidence from all sides, and the outcome is likely to be seriously flawed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "proper" scope :) I'll be honest, I don't understand the stated confusion about scope (and didn't when it was asked at the case request either). The complaint is about POV-pushing with the effect of whitewashing articles about the German military. Others argue that the filer is tendentious in pursuing this belief. So evidence should ideally consist of examples of either POV-pushing or tendentiousness, or of related interpersonal conflicts if they exist, or of rebuttals of either the POV-pushing or tendentious editing hypotheses. I realize arbcom overcomplicates a lot of things, but this doesn't need to be one of them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you think it should be about, but not what the scope says at the top. What about the rest of the Arbs? There appears to be a range of opinions on the scope. I'd like to hear from them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree with Opabinia regalis, there's merit in a look at the editor conduct of LargelyRecyclable/k.e.coffman to unpick allegations of tendentious/POV editing and claims of harassment. Plus the conduct of any other specific editors regarding whom related evidence is submitted.

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

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

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

Again, the above is a personal view and it will be up to the drafters on how widely the case is ultimately drawn. I'd expect we'd all take part to the extent possible, regardless of whether we individually agreed with that decision. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LargelyRecyclable

[1]Frankly I'm somewhat confused myself. What are we doing here? A lot of specific issues have been raised but none seem to have to been identified as being under review. Further guidance would be appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of aforementioned off-wiki material. Is it publicly submitable? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BU Rob13

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

Comments by Cinderella157

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

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

See my response and Opabinia's. As for why you are a party, see Bishonen's evidence. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, I was a little confused by "See my response" but think you mean: at PM67's comments?[2] BU Rob13 observes (above): "At present, the Committee is proceeding on this case with no scope ...and really no idea where we're going or how we're going to get there. We're flying blind ... the confusion here clearly shows why we should have procedures requiring a clear scope before a case is opened." If your statement above, Opabinia's (but not Euryalus?)[3] represent the scope, then this should be made explicit to remove any possible "confusion".

Your response indicates Bishonen's evidence as the reason for my being made a party. However, their evidence and your response does not make explicit specific allegations. There is no reference to policy or like that would "reason" for my inclusion as a party. I remain unclear as to what I should address in consequence of being made a party. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a personal view above, because we were asked to and it seemed a reasonable request - from my perspective if you have evidence relating to the conduct of specific editors in either POV-pushing in "German war effort" articles, or harassing each other, or making false allegations, then post it. If you have a wider view on systemic source misuse or otherwise in this same set of articles, feel free to post that also as some Arbs expressed interest in including this per k.e.coffman's initial case request. I don't personally think this allegation of systemic problems can be resolved as part of this case, but will defer to the drafters to carry that forward or not that based on evidence received. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, if you think only evidence that is peppered with explicit references to our best-known policies, such as WP:NPA, is of interest to the committee, I think you're in for a disappointment in these proceedings. Few people will supply policy links, because they'll assume arbcom has already heard of them. My evidence wrt you, for instance, notes what I call a "comprehensive attack on KEC", and I link to my own comment on your page, which, if you click on it, turns out to be headed "No personal attacks, please". You think that's not an "explicit specific allegation", because it has "no reference to policy"? My second complaint of you on the evidence page explains why I think your famous atrocity links were "extremely offensive". Still not explicit enough? I don't think insisting on policy links will profit you, but if you feel you can't respond to my evidence about you (and now also K.e.coffman's evidence about you) because it doesn't name policies, then that's your call: don't respond if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Your broadly disrespectful behavior is not unprecedented but, at the very least, you would be behooved to grant the most minuscule amount of decency to another editor whose contributions tangibly outstrip your own. Absolutely nobody here is unfamiliar with your propensity to glam onto drama; nonetheless, the slightest bit of respect is due in this venue. Be decent. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an extension by K.e.coffman

I would like to request an extension of the word limit for my evidence; the matters are complex and require me to provide context for the diffs. I would appreciate an extension. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: The limit for involved parties is 1000 words and 100 diffs. How many words do you expect to need, approximately? --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostas20142: About 3500 words & <100 diffs. The diffs require context, i.e. it's hard to substantiate the claim of misuse of sources just by providing a diff; I need to explain how the source is being misused & what the source actually says. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do these diffs focus entirely on currently named parties, or other editors as well? If other editors, can you send a list to arbcom-l? Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Your extension to 3500 words is granted with the understanding that the Committee may later ask you to trim your evidence. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by {username}

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :::[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]], if you think only evidence that is peppered with explicit references to our best-known policies, such as [[WP:NPA]], is of interest to the committee, I think you're in for a disappointment in these proceedings. Few people will supply policy links, because they'll assume arbcom has already heard of them. My evidence wrt you, for instance, notes what I call a "comprehensive attack on KEC", and I link to my own comment on your page, which, if you click on it, turns out to be headed "No personal attacks, please". You think that's not an "explicit specific allegation", because it has "no reference to policy"? My second complaint of you on the evidence page explains why I think your famous atrocity links were "extremely offensive". Still not explicit enough? I don't think insisting on policy links will profit you, but if you feel you can't respond to my evidence about you (and now also K.e.coffman's evidence about you) because it doesn't name policies, then that's your call: don't respond if you'd rather not. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
+::::Your broadly disrespectful behavior is not unprecedented but, at the very least, you would be behooved to grant the most minuscule amount of decency to another editor whose contributions tangibly outstrip your own. Absolutely nobody here is unfamiliar with your propensity to glam onto drama; nonetheless, the slightest bit of respect is due in this venue. Be decent. [[User:LargelyRecyclable|LargelyRecyclable]] ([[User talk:LargelyRecyclable|talk]]) 07:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 ==Request for an extension by K.e.coffman==