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	0/0/0

[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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Statement by Prüm

Allow me, as a foreigner who can claim a certain understanding of the topic discussed and has made (slight) acquaintance with both editors, to comment on the case. Both editors may have their merits and errors, but I see both as contributing essentially in good faith. My take on the matter is that K.e.coffman has, for reasons I don't wish to speculate about - except perhaps in private - singled out but one editor he feels uncomfortable with. The root of the matter goes much deeper, as he must be aware of, considering his latest Bugle article. While steps must certainly be taken to put the history of the so-called Third Reich, as presented on this particular wiki, into proper perspective, one cannot go about this in an incoherent way, as I find is the case here. LargelyRecyclable has made valuable contributions to articles on the topic and I see no other way but for K.e.coffman to acknowledge that he made a mistake in attacking this particular editor ahead of all others who bear responsibility for the sad state of affairs. I am available for further questions. --Prüm (talk) 15:47, 21 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: [13], [14] (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)

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)

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)

Statement by Cinderella157

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.

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).

K.e.coffman (Ke) makes many productive edits but there are quite a number that clearly result in conflict and disruption of the project. 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 do not agree with all of the edits made by LR and cited by Ke. However, they are not exceptional when compared with edits made by Ke.

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 Ke 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

I would draw attention to World War II reenactment, its history since 2016, when it was greatly reduced and the two most recent discussions 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 (by Babette Quinkert). I noted that another review gave quite a different outlook of the book but had not been cited.

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.

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, that 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, would suggest that many in MilHist should be concerned for similar charges simply because they disagree with Ke to any extent. On the otherhand, taking this particular course 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. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 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).

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

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)
• 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)
• 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)