Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. As standard opening. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am usually not fond of this opening, but in this case it is very relevant. Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@Alex Shih: Agree. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. We don’t decide what articles should say; we’re not an editorial board. Of course, there are types of user misconduct that can affect content, such as POV-pushing or misuse of sources, but our focus is on the misconduct (if any). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Brad. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Brad. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. As Brad said, but emphasising that there is often not a really clear-cut line line between the two. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I feel like the OR/Synth point should be under a separate Principle, or the header should be renamed. I won't hold anything up on that basis though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"historiographies" is a possibly confusing term in this context. I consider its use in this manner to be jargon--rather, it a field of study, the "history of history", or the analysis of historical thought. I suggest we replace it by "historical interpretations" . DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with minor tweaks. Alex Shih (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.

Support:

1. Support as rewritten. Sourcing policy and good encyclopedic practice are especially important in the context of sensitive subject-matters such as those involved in this case (see also, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Sensitivities of subject-matter). Of course, describing these principles is the easier part; the tough job is to apply the principle in the context of a given dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as rewritten. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think there's room for some quibbles on the details - there's lots more ways to be a bad source - but this hits the main points. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support as it is now rewritten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I still consider this too general to be helpful. To explain further, I consider tha the use of biased and questionable sources may sometimes be in ignorance of their nature, may sometimes be a good faith NPOV effort to present the range of views or make sure all facts have some sourcing no matter how questionable the sources, or may represent either overt or unconscious prejudice in favor of the view they express. In particular, the use (and especially the insistence) on questionable sourcing when better sourcing is available, is at least a preliminary indication that the use of the questionable sourcing is based on prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC) (explanation of my abstention expanded in view of comments on the talk page here) DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Not a fan of the second-last sentence. Wikipedia articles should be written in a manner accessible to the general reader. That does not require the privileging of "popular" sources, especially in specialist fields where these popular sources may be simplified to the point of inaccuracy. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Courtesy ping to DGG, any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to begin with the preference for unbiased sources before turning to the question of when we should rely on more partisan ones. And context counts too: while ideally all articles should top-quality sourcing, in reality the use of a biography written with (for example) a highly favorable view of the article subject may be more problematic in the case of a controversial military or political figure than, say, a ballplayer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this needs rewriting. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partially rewritten based on Newyorkbrad's suggestion (to begin with preference for unbiased sources, followed by noting on when and under what circumstance should biased and questionable sources be used). Alex Shih (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has become a bit of a tautology now. "When it comes to identifying reliable sources, editors should always try to use...reliable [sources]." What about: "Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, taking into account things like editorial oversight, fact checking, and bias within the source per our guidelines on the matter." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have never been known for my excellent grammar. Revised with some minor tweaks. Alex Shih (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is sufficiently clear to say ". Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject." but . "Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can in general be used only if they are the best sourcing for information on a subject, or as a source for their own opinions., or necessary for the presentation of a significant point of view."

I also added in an earlier stage the sentence about academic sources, which I would now word:. "In general, in areas where they are relevant, recent academic sources are considered more reliable than older or non-academic sources, but reliable non-Academic sources can & should be used to supplement them." If there is disagreement on this it can be added as a separate principle to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a random sugestion, how about something as simple as "Article content should be properly sourced. The content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources outlines when and how to incorprate material from sources that may be considered questionable or biased." -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant. I would support this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. All parties involved are well aware of the fact that all article content needs to be properly sourced, and they are all aware of WP:IRS; the underlying dispute is that people are disagreeing with what WP:IRS is saying. K.e.coffman is basically saying that a lot of the questionable sources should not be considered as reliable sources to begin with. The other involved parties are saying that citing verifiable facts (such as place of birth) from biased sources in a neutral way is perfectly within policy. Alex Shih (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just explaining the argument, not making it, but that argument seems completely circular to me. If the facts are verifiable, by virtue of their also appearing in better sources, then citing those sources seems like the obvious solution. I know that not every topic area has a culture of preferring the best available source on each point, and in some areas most sources will be as good as each other, but specifically defending the presence of bad sources on the grounds that the material they're used for also appears in better ones seems less productive than just citing the better ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, we have dispute-resolution processes for a reason, but primarily we are on Wikipedia to share information, not to call each other names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) While it is acceptable and sometimes necessary for an editor to review, comment and correct appropriately on the contributions of another editor that are problematic, the practice known as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking" is considered as a form of harassment and is prohibited by policy. The line between legitimate and improper behavior in this area is not always clearly defined. Relevant factors include whether or not there was consensus from multiple editors on the concerns raised, and whether or not the editor have raised these concerns on talk pages, noticeboards or other appropriate venues. Most importantly, whether or not the editor was motivated by good faith concerns about the quality of the topic area, instead of being motivated by personal hostility toward one editor.

Support:

1. Agree with the principle but suggest removing "may become a very serious matter" and just leave it to read "may result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Seriousness is relative, and implied in the reference to the behaviours listed in the sentence. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. We might consider using the wording from the Doncram case (principle 8). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'm not quite there on the last sentence, because often we have no way of knowing what someone was motivated by (and in fact they may be motivated by combinations of things - you don't have to be motivated purely by hostility to suddenly become very sensitive to the faults of someone you've come to dislike). But overall this is fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I do not think this gives clear enough guidance to be worth saying. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC) To explain a little further, the last sentence should have read: Most importantly, whether or not the editor was motivated by good faith concerns about the quality of the topic area, instead of being motivated by personal hostility toward one editor. or even by unconscious or conscious prejudice about the topic." DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comments:

Removed the mention of "may become a very serious matter". Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was only a minor point, but appreciate the quick action. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten by paraphrasing from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram principle 8 per Newyorkbrad. Pinging Euryalus and Doug Weller to see if the rewritten principle is compatible with the previous wording that has been voted. Alex Shih (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7) The function of WikiProjects is to facilitate and improve editing in a topic area. Popular WikiProjects like the military history WikiProject may have a group of coordinators that have been selected by approval vote of the project community. Their role is to maintain the internal structure and process of the project, and do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.

Support:

1. This amended version of the section acknowledges the role WikiProjects play, while stating the limits these projects have. This version of the principle is can support. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support the revised wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Technically correct. Coordinators do often have an informal influence based on the respect of their peers in the relevant topic area. "Maintaining internal structure" can also sometimes be relevant in content disputes. Still, the wording is good enough in the context of this decision. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Boring point - this is written as if all popular wikiprojects with coordinators select those coordinators by approval voting. Is that the case, or is it just milhist that does that? Otherwise this is a good description. Euryalus is of course right that coordinators have some influence - and maybe newer editors interpret the role as more authoritative than it is, as they often do with other internal-organization type roles - but in this case I don't think that's an issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Understand the intent, but disagree with most of the wording. First, Wikiproject consensus doesn't override the general community but any decently-functioning Wikiproject will likely include multiple editors with detailed knowledge and engagement with the topic, and their collective views should not be so lightly discarded. Second, Milhist co-ordinators do in fact have a role in mediating some disputes - they don't get to be judge and jury; they don't get to override community consensus, but they are accorded respect in these matters by virtue of their elected position. I appreciate the point of this Principle, but it's out of place here - we can consider findings and remedies relating to the conduct of individual editors who happen to be Wikiproject co-ordinators without dismissing the entire Milhist co-ordinator role. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Striking comment based on previous wording. Will come back to this in a few hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Insufficiently strong to be helpful, especially in this particular case . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) To explain a little further, it needs to be said that a Wikiproject may not be used to express or to encourage the expression of a particular POV, especially when the POV is so strong as to represent unconscious or conscious prejudice about the topic, nor may it be used to protect the editors who express such prejudice. added in view of talk p. comments DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I would prefer to start by mentioning the positive aspects of wiki projects (I wish there were more of them that were active) before mentioning the limits on their role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Nyb here. I think we should have this in a revised form. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. Rewritten based on comments by Euryalus, Newyorkbrad and Doug Weller. Please have another look, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as above, this needs to be revised. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore, are you commenting on the previous version or the current one? See my revision here. Would appreciate any input. Alex Shih (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I was basing on the older version of the section. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the coordinators nor the projects have a authority over content, and coordinators do not have power over a project We need to make each part clear . DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8) Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles, although this should be done with care. Featured articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be appropriately edited to maintain their quality, or may be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I edited the second sentence in hopefully a constructive way; feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The locus of the dispute is a longterm disagreement over due and undue weight, identifying reliable sources, in addition to what constitutes of "intricate details" in biographies relating to the Wehrmacht, and to a larger extent, German participation in the Second World War.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Shih (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Among other things, the parties disagree as to whether including detailed accounts of the military careers of members of the German officer corps during World War II, of a type that might often be unexceptionable in articles about other military figures, gives undue weight to those details, while drawing attention away from the extraordinary atrocious and criminal behavior of the regime that they served. Another aspect of the dispute is the reliability and usefulness of some of the sources on these topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I admit that I'm a little hesitant on accepting the "intricate details" framing - not being paper, Wikipedia is a great place to store details that would be boring and impractical in a more traditional reference - but there is certainly a variant of POV-pushing that consists of disproportionate detail on one part of a topic or one group of articles compared to others, which is the specific point being made here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Editors involved in the topic area of German participation in the Second World War have been mostly editing in good faith. Some of the editing however has been less than optimal, which resulted in ongoing content disputes and disputes over the principles of neutral point of view and the interpretation of reliable sources. This has involved some suboptimal user conduct.

Support:

1. This basically reiterates the locus of the dispute, but serves as a transition to the findings of user misconduct in the following sections. Alex Shih (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I completely sympathize with the view that Wikipedia articles must not be used to in any way minimize the crimes of the Nazi period. An editor perceiving that this has taken place has the right, if not the obligation, to raise his or her concerns. Fortunately, my review of the evidence allows me to conclude that few, if any, current editors on these articles are intentionally seeking to achieve such an improper goal. That leaves a somewhat complex series of content disputes as referenced in my comment on #1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. A little unnecessary as a Finding, but otherwise agree with NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I still think the wording is awkward, but it's not enough to oppose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with both NYB and PMC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per PMC. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The wording of this finding is somewhat redundant. "Some of the editing has been less than optimal... This has involved some suboptimal user conduct". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about incorporating the last sentence with something like "...reliable sources, involving some user misconduct."? Alex Shih (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be kind of redundant, and a run-on sentence. Does "The conduct of some editors has been less than optimal, resulting in ongoing content disputes regarding the principles of NPOV and the interpretation of reliable sources" seem ok as a slimmed-down version? Actually, secondary question: are we saying that the disputes concern the interpretation of the individual reliable sources, or about the interpretation of the reliable sources guideline generally? The wording "the interpretation of reliable sources" can be read either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the decision for another drafter. Personally I think it's necessary to differentiate between editors and editing; for instance, many editors involved in this case have edited just as energetically, and while there are alleged problems with these editing (such as misinterpreting reliable sources), these editing are done in both good faith and was the result of suboptimal communication. In this situation, I would say there were problems with the editing from this editor, but there was no misconduct. Regarding the secondary question, I think it should be read both ways. There is dispute over what the policy actually says, and dispute over the reliability of individual sources. Alex Shih (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3) The account of LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassed K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) virtually from its creation. Within the first 48 hours of account creation, they have targeted Rommel myth and other articles where K.e.coffman is the main contributor in terms of edits. ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) See also TonyBallioni's and Bishonen's evidence.

Support:

1. There is more than sufficient evidence here to justify that the account of LargelyRecyclable was created for the single purpose of engaging in harassing another editor. Alex Shih (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I believe there is sufficent evidence that the intent was to target a single user, even if it was not the only purpose of the account. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with WTT's assessment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not the only purpose of this account, but there's a reasonable body of evidence to support this Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. I do think this version would be better combined with the next FoF below, but eh, six of one and half-dozen of the other... Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per my comment, not as I would word it writing from scratch, but I understand the point. Please also see my comment on remedy 2 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I agree that LargelyRecyclable has unduly focused on K.e.Coffman's editing and has at times crossed the line into harassing him. It is not as clear to me that the account was created for the actual, subjective single purpose of such harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think TonyBallioni's evidence on the first 48 hours of edits from LargelyRecyclable is sufficient to justify the finding (as supported by MastCell in the evidence page as well). This section from Nick-D's evidence presents a strong case also, even though the CU findings were inconclusive. But I understand it is not our job to speculate. Alex Shih (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence supporting this is reasonable, but circumstantial. I don't see what it gets us to turn that into a firm conclusion. It makes no difference if the LR account was created specifically for the purpose of harassment or was originally created for editing about beetle species but the editor changed his mind before starting to use it. The point that matters is that LR has harassed K.e.coffman - speculating about the details of the circumstances through which that came about just seems to be adding unnecessary noise to the signal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad and Opabinia regalis: I admit I've had my doubts but have been I guess too lazy to do anything, but now that TonyBallioni has suggested "LargelyRecyclable began harassing K.e.coffman immediately after registering" shall we change it to that? Doug Weller talk 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) LargelyRecyclable has harassed K.e.coffman and Bishonen, and continued to engage in further personal attacks and harassment during the course of this arbitration case. (16% of edits to Talk: namespace included the string 'Coffman' [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) See TonyBallioni's and Bishonen's evidence.

Support:

1. Per my comment in the previous section. Alex Shih (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'll go ahead and support, though I think it could be tweaked per PMC's comment below. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Noting Bishonen's comments on the talk page, I don't object to removing her again (but for the record, that post during the case was obnoxious). Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Opabinia regalis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

could be combined with the previous finding. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I'll leave this to another drafter as well. My thinking was along the lines it would require two findings being thought out differently to justify the proposed remedy below (indefinite site ban under any account). But combining these two findings would probably make it more streamlined. Alex Shih (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: You mention harassment of "other users" (besides K.e.Coffman)—do you mean the incident with Bishonen, or something beyond that as well? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I think at the time of writing I was only thinking of the incident with Bishonen as presented in the evidence page. Do you think it's better to explicitly state it as such, and perhaps combine this with the previous finding as suggested by DGG? Alex Shih (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of combining them, because I think the claim in the previous one is a distraction from the main point in this one. I do think it would be useful to specify the users. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I tweak it to say "K.e.coffman and Bishonen", does that work? I can't see any particular others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had any replies so I've left it be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's specify the users per PMC's suggestion, even though in hindsight I am not sure if LargelyRecyclable's out of the blue personal attack post against Bishonen can be an example of "harassment" since it was not sustained. But either way is fine for me. Alex Shih (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to match the above discussion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5) K.e.coffman has edited energetically on occasion to remove materials at times that are non-contentious but are either non-verifiable or based primarily on biased or questionable sources. Their editing has been within the policies and guidelines, and they have not edited against the local consensus once it is clearly established. Their editing have always been civil, and the changes they made are usually well explained (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Evidence#K.e.coffman's_conduct).

Support:

1. I think all parties can agree that the editing behavior of K.e.coffman in this topic area has attracted a lot of criticism. Whether or not these criticisms are justified does not concern myself for this finding; For this section, I am more concerned about K.e.coffman's approach toward criticism on their editing behavior; in the evidence page, I have seen several examples of K.e.coffman dismissing concerns raised by other editors that are clearly hostile toward them with a smiley. If we were to emphasise on the importance of consensus building and collegial editing in a sensitive topic area, this is clearly not a optimal user conduct, and should be noted for what it is. Alex Shih (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to note that my comment here is based on the previous version of this FoF that is somewhat also applicable to the modified version (my position is similar to what has been expressed by DGG immediately below). Alex Shih (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. I continue to think we need a positive statement to this effect. It's probably the best way or really clarifying what we mean. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Since his actions were callled into question here, and we would say if they were not justified, we should equally say that they are. If we considered them worthy of a negative sanction , if we think them praiseworthy, we should say so, even though we have no positive actions at our disposal DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that only principles were being posted this morning, and I was out when this was posted. There are insufficient diffs for this and the last one is coffman's userpage. Thanks for pointing out my typo and lack of sig. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Still opposing. We're saying their editing is within policies and guidelines. I don't think we should be endorsing the "norms of the topic" area in this way. My original wording was "K.e.coffman has edited energetically but within our policies and guideline". I don't think using a smiley to comment is worth mentioning. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC) See also User:Nick-D's comments on coffman's conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Evidence presented by Nick-D comments on coffman's conduct. Note that he gives considerable detail and begins with the statement "I've reviewed most of the examples at User:K.e.coffman#Problematic WWII content, and in almost all cases agree with their judgement on it. The views of historians they obtained are also concerning." He points out that coffman "Regularly constructively and politely engages in discussions of their changes" "Frequently explains potentially contentious changes on talk pages and invites comment" uses noticeboards, follows consensus, etc. He also acknowledges that coffman can be over-enthusiastic and times but notes this doesn't seem to have occurred recently. I think this needs a complete rewrite. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Doug right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Doug on this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unnecessary. There's no point in a finding on user conduct that merely says there's nothing of concern regarding a user's conduct. Further: there are many legitimate supporters and critics of k.e.coffman's editing. That's fine provided the support and criticism is done in ways that fall within en-WP editorial policy. Singling out k.e.coffman as someone deserving of public Arbcom endorsement in these disputes implies that criticism of their edits is misguided - and that strays too close to endorsing one side over the other in an ongoing content discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Euryalus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Also per Euryalus, I'm really not happy with endorsing "sides". Worm^TT(talk) 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Euryalus. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Euryalus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   To add to this KEC's hands are not clean. Edit wars at Gordon Gollob and Hans-Ulrich Rudel, citation removal sprees, and content removal sprees. Also, gloating, post-dispute commenting on your userpage. User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour is specifically worse. (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Pudeo) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Doug Weller, I agree there are insufficient (I think that's a typo?) diffs. The last link is incorporated from evidence submitted by Cinderella157 ([15]). Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched "persistently" back to "energetically" for the time being and switched "norms of the topic area" to "local consensus", although I agree a complete rewrite is probably better. An editor can be editing within policies and guidelines, but if we are the venue to examine user (mis)conduct, all editing behaviours from all parties should be examined accordingly. This is not about the use of smiley, but whether or not K.e.coffman is willing to reflect that maybe perhaps there is a tendency to dismiss criticism despite of the severity of accusations directed against them on the evidence page. Alex Shih (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has K.e.coffman been dismissing criticism since the accusations? I'm also concerned that we might end up saying that coffman dismisses criticism while generally editing well, which would look at best trivial. I'd change it to something more like "K.e.coffman has edited energetically on occasion to remove materials at times that are non-contentious but are either non-verifiable or based primarily on biased or questionable sources. Their editing has been within the policies and guidelines and they have not edited against the local consensus once it is clearly established. Their editing have always been civil, and the changes they made are usually well explained (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Evidence#K.e.coffman's_conduct)." Enthusiasm in removing non-verifiable or based on biased or questionable sources is not an offense. If people think it does need to be mentioned, let's mention it last. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, revised accordingly to your suggestion. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5A) Over a year ago, K.e.coffman made off-wiki posts discussing their concerns about the German War Effort subject area on Wikipedia. When people responded to their post and asked what should be done, K.e.coffman's response was that people interested in the area should register accounts and edit in any areas that interested them, recommending copyediting, adding reliable sources or placing maintenance tags as good places to start. At no point in any of the threads or posts which were submitted to the Arbitration Committee for review did K.e.coffman suggest any particular articles or talk pages as a focus, nor did they recommend any specific sources to use. The Arbitration Committee has found no evidence that their posts had any effect on Wikipedia. Telling people they can create accounts and do normal editing does not constitute canvassing or meatpuppetry.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. we still need 5, but this is a suitable supplement to it. If we do not pass 5, it's the least that an be said. I support having them both DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. From what I've seen, I'm absolutely happy with the manner of K.e.coffman's off wiki suggestion that more people edit the area. Worm^TT(talk) 18:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I saw nothing there that encouraged sockpuppetry. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. I can see Amanda's point (maybe "at no point in the material examined..." or somesuch) but I think it's implied that FoFs reflect the evidence that was available to us during the case. With that caveat, this is true. I have the same hesitation as in the other FoF about Coffman - that maybe we don't need to state "this wasn't a problem" - but that's a more general philosophical point about how to structure decisions, not disagreement about the substance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Inviting people to edit Wikipedia is a good thing. Inviting people who know about a certain subject to edit about that subject is also a good thing. Inviting people who have a particular point of view to edit for the purpose of pushing that point of view is a bad thing. It is not always the easiest line to draw, but K.e.coffman did not cross it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. "At no point did K.e.coffman suggest any particular articles or talk pages as a focus, nor did they recommend any specific sources to use." I have issues with us trying to prove a negative here. Yes, we have no evidence, I agree, and i'm not saying that they have. But it's not something we can definitely say, and if evidence is discovered a week from now or is done in the future, then we have to back track this completely. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per comments on remedy 5 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per Euryalus in remedy 5, but not enough to oppose. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Adapted from Doug's comment earlier today. I think it's important to record that we looked into this and found it unproblematic. Other arbs should feel free to tweak the wording. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad, would you be more comfortable if I altered it to say "at no point in the posts which were sent to ArbCom as Evidence" or something like that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes something like that would be better. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad, I altered the wording per our discussion, are you still opposing even with the change? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in personal attacks against K.e.coffman and cast aspersions on their editing without providing sufficient evidence. ([16] [17])

Support:

1. The hostility toward K.e.coffman's editing noted by Cinderella157 is shared by several other editors and parties involved in this arbitration case, but the comment at Talk:Werner Mölders by Cinderella157 essentially labels K.e.coffman as a troll, and should amount to the level of personal attacks as the claim was never withdrawn nor was it sufficiently justified in their response at the evidence phase of this case. ([18]) Alex Shih (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cinderella157's edits went beyond criticism and into the realm of personal attacks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Their continued re-litigation on the talk page demonstrates that this behavior is ongoing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm not 100% on this finding, per NYB below, but the fact is that both diffs cross the line and so I am willing to support. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. I've been away and was unable to read the diatribe on the PD talk page. Pretty stunning that the litigation continues against K.e.coffman even now. While I share Brad's reservations to a certain extent, those diffs are offensive. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I still think "personal attacks" is not quite the right framing, but it's not wrong either. I don't know how to write an arbspeak FoF for "persistent and aggressive cluelessness", but that's closer to the mark - not very nice feedback to get about your hobby, true, especially one where you've specifically volunteered your time for extra responsibilities. But this behavior is really unreasonable and needs an official response of some kind. It's not just the personal attacks, though - the stonewalling and weird defensiveness in response to good-faith concerns would have been inappropriate even if it were unfailingly polite. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Meh. Not entirely helpful as comments, but not to the level of personal attacks. Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. The first diff contained an inappropriate personal attack. K.e.coffman is not a wikilawyer or a troll; he is a knowledgeable, good-faith editor with sincere concerns about the content of highly sensitive articles, whether or not one believes that at times he has taken those concerns a step too far. Such a comment should not be repeated, but without more it does not rise to the level of an arbitration finding. The second diff is exceptionally offensive, as I pointed out at the case acceptance stage. However, based on Cinderella157's comments at that time (particularly here), I believe Cinderella157 listed a series of "evocative" historical events in an attempt to caution this Committee against deciding this case in a way that he thought could lead to censorship. I have only negative things to say about the way in which Cinderella157 made this point—frankly, I am still angry about it—but I don't read it as primarily an attack on K.e.coffman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Can't say I fully understand diff number two in context, but I agree with brad on the first. Not enough for a finding for me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Note that I revised the wording slightly per comment by Peacemaker67 at the talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157 has behaved poorly here. I also find their posts often difficult to follow, due to length and rhetoric. But I don't think "personal attacks" are really the core of the problem - an idiosyncratic approach to sourcing does seem to be a recurring problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7) Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have expressed comments that are contradictory to the principles of WikiProjects and featured articles. (WikiProjects: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]; Featured articles: [24])

Support:

1. Per my comment below. Alex Shih (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Calling content disputes to the attention of a relevant wikiproject, which will ordinarily comprise editors with expertise and interest in relevant subject-matter, is proper behavior. Auntieruth55 may have exaggerated the degree to which the wikiproject and its members have the ability to resolve such disputes, but that is not misconduct rising to the level of an arbitration finding. Likewise, emphasizing or even overemphasizing a featured article's status as such may be unhelpful in a given context, but it does not rise to the level of misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB Worm^TT(talk) 18:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think there's room for a FoF about Auntieruth's obstructionism/stonewalling behavior (actually, both Auntieruth and Cinderella) but I don't think this particular wording works. I don't think there are really generally agreed-upon "principles of wikiprojects" that could serve as an anchor here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per OR. I have trouble with Auntieruth55's behavior here but the words don't work for me. Katie^talk 22:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. In favor of FoF 9. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The principles in question here are 1) Project coordinators should not be treated as an umpire to judge content disputes for WikiProjects, and 2) Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles. To suggest editing them with care would be perfectly fine, but to suggest that featured articles should be left out of discussion in a content dispute would be against this principle. Alex Shih (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really of two minds on this and the previous FoF, because the problems are so embedded in the content dispute. It is not an arbitration-level conduct matter to be wrong about FAs, and it really shouldn't be grounds for a finding to make bad arguments in arbitration cases, but I am really concerned about the way these two have been behaving - both the matters in evidence about poor approaches to sourcing, and the "circle the wagons" approach taken since those things were questioned, including in comments made during the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we alter the FoF to include those comments? That might go a ways to increasing the "weight" of it, so to speak. The diffs in the FoF as currently written don't rise to the level of sanctionable behavior IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) (Which is not to say that it isn't worth a reminder to Auntieruth55; I supported that below) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support doing that. The diff where Auntieruth55 pings the coordinators to inform them is not bringing something to the attention of the project. It's bringing it to the attention of certain editors, and there's a difference. MILHIST is arguably the strongest WikiProject with the most rigid structures, and the conduct of those working within (or against) those structures are among the things we should examine. Katie^talk 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8) K.e.coffman raised a series of good-faith concerns that articles about the German military and military leadership during World War II placed too much emphasis on the strictly military and technical aspects, such as the individuals' military records, without placing the individuals' roles into their duly weighted historical contexts. Other editors on these articles opined that K.e.coffman's response to this concern, including removals of certain information, was in their view excessive. While those responding (other than LargelyRecyclable) also generally did so in good faith, the tone of some of the resulting discussions was unnecessarily aggressive and was not calculated to assist in resolving what had become a significant series of content disputes involving a complex and deeply sensitive subject.

Support:

1. Proposed after weeks of consideration about what more, if anything, we can do to address the issues in this difficult case. See also the associated remedy proposal below. Other arbitrators may have additional proposals to add as we move this case toward a conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Confirming that the modification to the wording is fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. It isn't just articles, but also various sources that were commonly accepted in German military history topic area while K.e.coffman found them to be problematic (and many of them were). But as Newyorkbrad noted, because of the exchanges were unnecessarily aggressive, the good faith from both sides were regretfully overlooked. This is related to K.e.coffman's cleanup attempt on articles relating to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (mostly in 2016 I think) as I noted on this talk page; their approach in that case could be viewed as over-zealous, which left a negative impression for opposing editors in the same topic area and prompted them to personalise their content dispute with K.e.coffman in subsequent interactions. Alex Shih (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 17:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Works for me. Peacemaker's suggested change on the talk page is also fine (though in regard to this part, it's worth noting that the finding as written is about the content of K.e.coffman's concerns, not about whether they were ultimately correct or not). Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 07:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support now that I've removed the bit about downplaying, for which we have no evidence. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. With the alteration. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree with this Finding, though remain unconvinced that the conduct referenced here is best dealt with via topic bans. Without rehearsing arguments already posted elsewhere, if the problem is the approach to "content" the answer is likely a topic ban or block. If the problem is the approach to "conduct" the answer is likely an iban or a block. In this case we are highlighting a perceived conduct issue and addressing it with a "content" restriction. Hence my support for this Finding (which is fine as a statement of fact) while disagreeing with a remedy that doesn't fit the facts. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support generally, though I see no way of concluding who might or might not be editing in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

:# User:Peacemaker67 has stated that "I don't think it is accurate to state that there was a "downplaying the German military's participation in the overall program of the Nazi regime", because I don't believe there has been evidence provided that any editor has actually been doing that." I also don't accept that the personalisation of a content dispute can be blamed on anyone other than the person making it personal. There are much better ways of dealing with an approach that "could be viewed as over-zealous". Doug Weller talk 11:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

My point is that there was (is?) a dispute as to how some of these articles should be presented, not that anyone acted with an improper intent to skew the articles (I've commented elsewhere on this page I don't think that was anyone's intent). If any arbitrator would like to propose a wording change, or for that matter if any editor would like to do so (on the talkpage), please do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9) Cinderella157 and Auntieruth55 were coordinators of the Military History WikiProject. Though WikiProject coordinators lack formal authority over content matters, their behavior was influential due to their position. The behavior of both these coordinators was dismissive and obstructionist in response to serious, good faith concerns about a problem. ([25], [26], [27], [28], Bishonen's evidence)

Support:

1. Katie^talk 17:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yep, this is a good description. The thing about informal influence is that it's easy to get so accustomed to it that you sort of stop noticing that you're using it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think we can fairly say there were attempts to play on the informal influence that comes with any organizer-coordinator-leader type role, without necessarily saying that being a coordinator officially grants one any kind of formal authority. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Tries to have it both ways - elsewhere we assert that Milhist coordinators have no particular authority and shouldn't pretend to it; here, despite the qualifier, we do assert that Milhist coordinators have particular authority and should therefore meet an undefined higher standard. With respect I think we are trying to find a way to rule on the content issue by shoehorning it into terminology associated with conduct, but while I have sympathy for the content argument that sparked this whole thing off I don't think Arbcom is the forum for making such a ruling. More generally, am not sure why we keep trying to bring coordinator roles into these findings at all - if we are seriously advancing this as a case outcome, lets stick to the final sentence relating to specific conduct, and leave the rest aside. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are no diffs linked to Cinderella157, and Bish's evidence does not rise to level of a finding for them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not entirely comfortable with this; while this FoF is consistent with principle 3.1.7, the logical sequence of the current wording seem to suggest a remedy involving their position as MILHIST coordinators, which is definitely not in the works. A fair summary nevertheless, not a reason to oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed to address the conduct of these two editors specifically as coordinators of the WikiProject. Katie^talk 17:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Topics related to the German participation in the Second World War, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per Alex Shih. Happy to change this vote if there's a clearer indication of how DS would actually be useful in resolving this dispute, or evidence that there's admins willing and able to engage themelves with the issue who are otherwise restrained by the absence of DS. But not presently seeing it. Also, as a general point we are reaching critical mass on the number of articles under DS, with its labyrinthine machinery and obscure notification procedures. If we're going to keep applying it at this rate, we need to streamline its operation and/or comprehenisvely review old DS remedies to determine if they can be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comment below. Alex Shih (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. There isn't a need at this time for DS to be implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not required, and I agree with the point User:Nick-D makes on the talk page that this would be too wide. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am not willing to support the use of DS as a remedy, unless there is no possible alternative. It leads to erratic decision making and undue power to the first-acting admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I can't see that DS are required to fix this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DS are most useful when there are many editors involved in a dispute, or when a dispute is frequently reignited by new disputants. I don't think this is a good use case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doing too much. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

To briefly reiterate what I have expressed in drafting discussions: I am opposed to discretionary sanction (DS) as a remedy, because it does not seem proportionate to the findings of facts that we have so far. I am inclined to agree with comment by Peacemaker67 in the workshop page that there simply isn't that kind of level of disruption in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.

Support:

1. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Consistent with the findings. I don't see a need to propose interaction ban at this time, but if LargelyRecyclable ever decides to appeal the ban, a motion can be proposed at that time. Alex Shih (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. With some reluctance re other options, per the comment below. In passing this is as good a place as any to say this single sanction is not the solution to the issue that was initially raised, which is whether there is systemtic bias in articles relating to WWII German military personnel (and if so why). That issue relates too closely to content and editorial judgement for Arbcom to be well-placed to address it - a point that I and others made at the outset. What's really needed to address that issue is for the editor/Milhist community to examine the validity or otherwise of the allegation in a more comprehensive form than has occurred to date, and build a consensus view as a guide for current or future revisions in this field. Arbcom can address individual coinduct disputes, but that alas is as far as the mandate seems to go. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Euryalus. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Given previous issues on other accounts (that didn't amount to clean start issues as declared by ArbCom in 2017 - I was inactive at the time), continued harassment, and not heeding to the advice given to step back. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. I agree with Euryalus that this an incomplete solution to the problem as originally presented. But there's good evidence that LR has been harassing someone for virtually the entire history of the account, and they don't have much of an edit history outside of the topic area at issue, so there's not much background of mitigating evidence to consider that would support a topic ban instead. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. This is just a matter of instinct, but somehow LargelyRecyclable's behavior does not fit the model of the ordinary single-purpose harassment and trolling account. The pattern of targeting was highly improper, but I think was motivated by feelings about the underlying content disputes, rather than personal animus. I believe there is a chance that this editor could edit productively in unrelated topic-areas if he wished to, although it's noteworthy that he hasn't asked. As such, this vote can be considered a second choice to a broad topic-ban if one were proposed, but I'm not going to take everyone's time by proposing it given that the siteban is clearly going to pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Addressing the current negative interactions between k.e.coffman and LargelyRecyclable would be one of the relatively few meaningful outcomes likely to pass in this PD. That there are few outcomes is probably appropriate - as discussed in the case request the heart of this case is a content discussion which is outside Arbcom's function to address. So here we are with this proposed remedy. I wonder though whether a site ban is the only option, or whether topic/interaction bans would achieve the same outcome. I know the drafters have considered this already, but thought I'd flag it here as well. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of our comments on use of sources have a clear implication about content. That's probably the closest we can come,and I hope it's sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

3) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for personal attacks against K.e.coffman and casting aspersions on their editing and character.

Support:

:# I'll go ahead and support as my third choice after 3B and 3A. Katie^talk 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC) See below. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would support this if coupled with the declaration that any further inappropriate remarks will lead to a stronger sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I feel as does PMC below, but this is necessary as a minimum. DGG ( talk ) 13:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I just don't like admonishments. They remind me of the threats the school principal would make - "this is going on your permanent record!" Often their utility is as a compromise solution between some arbs who want a stronger sanction and some who want nothing in particular, but I don't think that's the case here - there's agreement that something should be done, but we're not quite sure what yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moving here in favor of other remedies. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Insufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Proposing as a remedy in response to the finding of fact proposed above. Despite of my support on the fact there were personal attacks involved, I am abstaining for two reasons 1) I agree that it doesn't amount to the level needing a remedy from the committee, and 2) Being opposed to admonishments in general as they resolve nothing. Alex Shih (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Leaning oppose, but not worth the argument at this time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I think Cinderella157's behavior during this entire case, including the extensive re-litigation on the talk page (which continues to cast aspersions), is in need of more than a simple admonishment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3A) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed indefinitely under a one-way interaction ban with K.e.coffman, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC) - now my third choice if neither 3B nor 3C passes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think it's called for and as Cinderella157 has said he rarely edits in the same area as coffman should not cause him any practical problems but simply stop this unacceptable behavior which I find particularly disturbing when carried out by a Milhist coordinator. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC) I see that he is active in this area, so striking my comment above about him not being active. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd go further, but it can start here. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Second choice to 3B. Katie^talk 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Third choice. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Reading over the comments on the talk page, I am changing my position. This behavior is uncalled for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm not happy with one way interaction bans, but having read over everything, I'm leaning to support. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Preferable to alternatives at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I will reiterate my position on this. I understand the principle behind proposing interaction ban for this case, but it is counter-intuitive to propose interaction ban for one party of an arbitration case against another party of the same case for being persistent with their arguments against that very party, during the duration of the case. I agree with MastCell that Cinderella157's bludgeoning of discussions throughout this case warrants some kind of "corrective action", but my concern is whether or not there is evidence that Cinderella157 interacted with K.e.coffman disruptively and persistently outside of this case. If there isn't, then it is far better to leave this kind of decision to the community, should interaction ban is found to be necessary in the future. I do believe we need to recommend clear guidance on how interaction ban is the logical next step if Cinderella157 is unwilling to modify their approach to editing. Alex Shih (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unnecessary. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't feel this is necessary, however I am in agreement with my fellow arbs that Cinderella157's excessive bludgeoning needs to be addressed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm generally inactive on this case, but I will be active on this remedy only due to my strong opposition to one-way interaction bans. One-way interaction bans almost never work. They tend to make disputes increasingly personalized. They often cause disputes to move into off-wiki forums, etc., where we have no jurisdiction. They do not address underlying behavioral problems resulting in the poor interactions. They're like a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. Superficially, the issue is dealt with. The underlying damage remains and continues to get worse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Euryalus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not enthusiastic about ibans in general, but when they are the right tool, it's generally because of a recurring pattern of interpersonal conflict. That's not really what's happening here - this is poor management of a content issue that gave rise to personal conflicts, not primarily a problem of not getting along. Preference is, I guess, 3C > 3A > 3B. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposing this because as I stated above I think more than a simple admonishment is required here. As always, I welcome adjustments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling here, as I don't like one-way interaction bans, but not so much that I wish to oppose. Will consider other options, as (per RickinBaltimore) I feel Cinderella157's behaviour does need to be addressed. Worm^TT(talk) 18:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, I'm happy for this to pass alongside 3B or 3C. That does mean the numbering should be changed if other arbs agree. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking through this one and will vote in the next 24 hours. That being said, I disagree with the idea that one-way interaction bans should be avoided even in principle. Sometimes they are the only sensible and proportionate remedy, in a situation where Editor A has a pattern of misbehavior toward Editor B but otherwise behaves acceptably, and Editor B has done nothing wrong. Compare, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NYB on the general question - not a good remedy to use without careful consideration, but appropriate for certain situations. (It feels like there must have been some recent-ish failures of one-way ibans, though I can't think of any offhand.) I'm not quite ready to support yet, but this is my preference of the current options. The suggestion on the talk page about specifically addressing the bludgeoning issue with a comment-length restriction might work too. (To be honest I'd be up for trying that in a number of cases. Maybe I'll even apply it to myself!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3B) Cinderella157 is indefinitely restricted from edits related to World War II, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. See my comments below. Katie^talk 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Second choice behind 3C. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see I was wrong in thinking that Cinderella157 was not editing in the topic area. Given that and the post today by User:Serial Number 54129 which points to Cinderella157's current as well as past behavior, I'm supporting a topic ban. This sort of behavior not what we expect of an ordinary editor and certainly not at all appropriate for a project coordinator. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Just saw Tony Ballioni's suggest, and I would prefer it if this read " topics related to the history of Germany 1932-1945, broadly construed." Doug Weller talk 18:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice if 3A doesn't pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Now second choice to 3C. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice to 3C Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. this is in addition to 3C. Thetwo are complementary. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No, this is wildly disproportionate. If anything this also feels nothing but punitive, because as I mentioned previously, there is no evidence of Cinderella157 editing disruptively in the topic area, which makes this unjustifiable by policy. The issues at hand here is Cinderella157's personalising of disputes and excessive bludgeoning of discussions in the course of this arbitration case. A far-reaching topic ban is inconsistent with any findings; does the current user conduct of Cinderella157 need to stop immediately? Absolutely. But this should not be the remedy that we are looking for here. We might as well just ask them to step down as a MILHIST coordinator effective immediately, and that is certainly not within our scope and responsibilities. Alex Shih (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mostly per Alex Shih. Reckon this specific issue would be addressed by finishing up this case and letting everyone calm down. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose as currently worded - possibly something narrower to allow the current content issue to be discussed by others without distraction, but I think a solution that focuses on behavior more than topic is more likely to work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Largely per Alex. Few editors are at their best in the context of an arbitration case. If problems continue after the case is closed, I'd readily accept an amendment request to revisit this proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Euryalus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Several are uneasy with a one-way IBAN, so proposing this as an alternative. Cinderella157's behavior has continued both publicly and privately, including into this phase. If it continues outside the WWII topic area, I'd be willing to expand to all military history. This has to stop. Katie^talk 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3C) Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. tweaking wording to make it clear that it's article edits he's banned from, not just articles related to... Probably could be worded better still. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. first choice to 3B Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. This narrowed version is now my first choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice seeing this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. A reasonable choice . DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Alex Shih's comment above, which applies equally here. If we feel that Cinderella157 does content editing largely within policy but cannot edit collaboratively alongside k.e.coffman the solution is an interaction ban or a block, not a topic ban. If an interaction ban doesn't pass we shouldn't then turn to an alternative, somewhat random remedy like this one. A sanction should specifically address the conduct, which this remedy doesn't. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Euryalus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Alex Shih (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Preferable to 3B. Please see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I tried, but I just can't get on board. I guess I abstain less from this one than from 3A, if that's a thing, but I have two reservations. One is a reiteration of what I've said several times on this page - that the problem is not really the topic, but the obstructionist behavior. The other is that the proposals here have focused mainly on Cinderella rather than Auntieruth, likely at least partly due to their higher level of case participation - which, to be clear, was not all that helpful, but all the usual caveats about the high-stress environment apply. (Admittedly we're not helping by taking so long to decide what to do.) One bright spot in all this, at least, is that there's some agreement that Cinderella and Auntieruth obstructed content development through their unofficial influence, and now that others in the topic area have seen the progress of this case, too much informal social deference is unlikely to be an ongoing problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Narrowing to allow them to participate in other WWII areas. Word tweaks welcome. Katie^talk 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 and TonyBallioni:, I hope the tweak I've just done suffices. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to WP:TBAN per Bishonen's suggestion. At this late point, that's the last massage we're willing to make to the language. The rest can be done at ARCA, if necessary. Katie^talk 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that the use of biased and questionable sources are not prohibited by policy, especially when the content is verifiable, non-controversial and has been included by editorial consensus. They are encouraged to continue to identify unreliable sourcing and bring them to wider community attention.

Support:

Oppose:

1. There are problems with the way K.e.coffman communicates their editing, but none of which were done with malice and does not require a remedy. Alex Shih (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. the use of such sources is permitted only within limits, and his arguments in the discussions is that they were used inappropriately and with a biased consensus. . I agree with what I understand Alex to say, he pressed his arguments sometimes overzealously--and there might be a remedy saying so.

   In addition, it is not correct to say b&q sources are permitted " especially when the contentment is verifiable &non controversial"--they are permitted only when the content is also verifiable by nonbiased sources, or the material is non-controversial, (or as a expression of the source's opinion). To say simply that sources are permitted if the content is verifiable is to beg the question. We use sources in order to verify the material. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Euryalus (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. In addition to the other problems, this would be quoted out of context as our endorsing the use of "biased and questionable sources," as opposed to reluctantly accepting their use in specified circumstances and for certain narrow, specific purposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

5) Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.

Support:

1. I think the extent of attempted authority does justify a reminder, as a minimum. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my comments in the FoF. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Now that there is a finding that I can get behind for Auntieruth55, I'm happy with this reminder. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with Worm on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Solely because we are passing FOF 9, otherwise i'd have to rethink. I also dissent on "that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems" as the FoF does not match that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comments on the Principle. There's no ironclad adjudication role for project co-ordinators, but let's make allowance for a good faith attempt to use informal authority as an elected co-ordinator to resolve a protracted dispute. Not necessarily the approach I would have taken, but not something requiring an Arbcom reminder to do differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Euryalus. Alex Shih (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per the above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Worm^TT(talk) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Abstain:

1. I hope AuntieRuth gets the idea by now, without the need for a formal arbitration remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I feel like a doofus going back and forth and back again over supporting a reminder - especially just after complaining that admonishments are meaningless, surely a reminder is even more so? On the one hand, trying to throw nonexistent weight around in discussions is obnoxious behavior. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to Euryalus' view and sort of think that misusing your completely informal, non-content-influencing coordination role is mostly a matter for the people who elect the coordinators and orient newly elected ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.

Support:

1. Well yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a cornerstone of what Wikipedia is built on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. There is a lot of hostility in this topic area, but despite of that most editors have been contributing in good faith and are able to engage in productive civil discussions. It is important to resolve longterm disagreements with the input from the wider community rather than holding on to that hostility and simply re-litigate them at another time. Alex Shih (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 18:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. A bit of a "kumbaya" but OK. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

Support:

1. Proposed. I am perfectly aware of the proposal's limitations, but at the end of the day, much of this remains a content dispute about issues of due weight and contextualization, and we can't write the articles. Other arbitrators may be adding additional proposals as we move this difficult case to a conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was wondering if we could note somewhere that while we received historian's statements directly (requested by K.e.coffman), these statements did not really contribute much to the final proposed decision since the committee does not rule on content. But having been exposed to more background information allowed us to have better insight over some obstructionist tendencies in the topic area, which is related to user conduct in my opinion. I think the final part of this remedy is a good compromise that should address the rationale of K.e.coffman over discretionary sanctions. Alex Shih (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. There is a limit as to what we can control content wise in any article. This proposal seems to be the best way to have some sort of handle on this issue for the community. RickinBaltimore (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Katie^talk 17:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Well, you can tell it's an NYB conclusion, but I agree. There was little we could actually do here. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I get that this feels a little like saying "we're not doing something now, but we're going to do something later, for sure! We pinky-swear!" but I think it does help set expectations going forward with regard to any further poor behavior in this area. One thing I have found difficult about this case, especially while reviewing the evidence, is that it's so content-oriented on a topic about which I have very little knowledge. That's frustrating in its own right, because I don't like trying to judge others' performance at something I know I'm no good at either - but it's also indicative of how little scope arbcom really has to manage the issues involved when they're so deeply intertwined with content matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per OR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. a good statement, but most conduct disputes arise from a content dispute, current or previous. it's usually the reason people care to get over-involved. And in practice, I thin some of our remedies & comments here make our views on the content dispute fairly clear. DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure I see the point of us passing this. The first half is entirely correct - the heart of this case has always been about content, and therefore out of Arbcom's scope. That was clear in the case request and in each subsequent stage - so while it is uncontroversial to restate it here, it's also of limited value in advancing discussion. The second part is a problem - if we have significant evidence of uncollegiate conduct we should act on it now rather than warning that we will act on it later. If we don't, there's little value in warning that one day we might. In the context of the above: Abstaining rather than oppose. There's nothing in the proposal that is necessarily harmful, nor is there enough to justify adding this remedy to the record of this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

8)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

9)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC) by DGG.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Role of the Arbitration Committee	10	0	0		·
3	Neutral point of view	10	0	0		·
4	Reliable sources	7	0	1		·
5	Criticism and casting aspersions	10	0	0		·
6	User contributions and harassment	9	0	1		·
7	Function of WikiProjects	8	1	0		·
8	Featured Articles	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Editors in the topic area	9	0	0		·
3	LargelyRecyclable began harassing K.e.coffman immediately after registering	11	0	0		·
4	LargelyRecyclable has harassed K.e.coffman & Bishonen	8	0	0		·
5	Conduct of K.e.coffman	3	8	0		Cannot pass
5A	Off-wiki posts by K.e.coffman	8	1	1		·
6	Conduct of Cinderella157	8	3	0		·
7	Conduct of Auntieruth55	2	7	0		Cannot pass
8	General finding	9	0	0		·
9	Cinderella157's and Auntieruth55's conduct as Military History WikiProject coordinators	7	2	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	0	10	0		Cannot pass
2	LargelyRecyclable banned	11	0	0		·
3	Cinderella157 admonished	2	6	2		Cannot pass
3A	Cinderella157 interaction ban	7	4	1		·	Rob active; failing to 3C
3B	Cinderella157 World War II topic ban	6	5	0		·	Failing to 3C
3C	Cinderella157 German history topic ban	6	2	3		·
4	K.e.coffman reminded	0	11	0		Cannot pass
5	Auntieruth55 reminded	6	3	1		·
6	Editors reminded	10	0	0		·
7	General conclusion and remedy	8	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Theres nothing outstanding in the PD, so we may as well move it along. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Temporary striking per Deltaquad. Not sure there'll be changes but yes there's an issue re the strength and relevance of diffs. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Katie^talk 10:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 12:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. At this point I don't see how we can do more. I've some regrets that we didn't get more out if the case, but on the other hand there can't have been many ArbCom cases that generated a peer reviewed journal article, even if it isn't directly about the case. The current issue of The Journal of Slavic Military Studies has an article "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’" by David Stahel who submitted evidence for this case.[29] Doug Weller talk 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Shih (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Either as-is, or if FoF 9 gets altered. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Yes, I'm going to drag my heals. I'll get overridden by net 4 anyway, but FoF #9 still has addressable issues with it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per comment above. Not sure we'll see changes to the FoF outcome but worth at least briefly reconsidering the diffs upon which it's based. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments