User:Cinderella157/GWE evidence suppliment

This is Supplimentary evidence in the GWE ArbCom case. This evidence is not intended to circumvent ArbCom word limits. It has two purposes. The first is to simplify the evidence given. In this respect, it is intended to make the substantive matters raised on the evidence page "clear" and separate from the "detail" that substantiate any claims or allegations. This is in response to my comments regarding KEC and MastCell wrt events at Talk:World War II reenactment. It will disentangle those comments made in respect to KEC from those that relate to MastCell and my subsequent allegation.

A second reason for this page is to provide context to the matters raised in evidence. I note that a lack of context could lead to allegations of misrepresentation. I believe it is quite inappropriate to deliberately misrepresent events for gain or for the detriment of another. I would rather not create the appearance of misrepresentation in consequence of not providing sufficient detail.

Combining these two reasons, I do not want to make statements that that are unclear or may be construed as a misrepresentation of greater context. Providing a few links and a "statement" may not "simply" establish the case being made. The purpose of this page then, is to provide the fuller context (as necessary for clarity and accuracy) while not "cluttering" the evidence statement with detail that may not be necessary.

For the most part, this page is intended to provide clarity where Arbs consider clarification or further detail might be needed.

Complex issues cannot be established by a couple of diffs. Such issues require much fuller detail.

Wehrmachtbericht (Wb)

{work in progress}

In analysing the spreadsheet data of KEC's edits to articles, Wehrmachtbericht (Wb) stood out, probably because of the size of the word. It appears over 700 times in edit summaries. Of these, 159 are edits to the Wb article.

As a significant but manageable set of data, it was investigated further. Observations consequently made are presented as a case study.

These are observations largely made with respect to process rather than content. I acknowledge that I have focused on KEC's actions by virtue of the nature of the case. Therefore, my comments are largely directed to their conduct. I have referred to other editors actions for context and in some cases, how KEC's actions might be perceived. That I have not commented on otrher editors actions in the same way as I have for KEC does not mean that I support the actions of other parties.

Edits to Wb article

KEC has made extensive edits to the article. Of note are peaks of activity in December 2015 and from March - July 2016.

Of relevence, is that KEC removed from the article material dealing with a named reference in the Wb being considered an award with this Revision as of 21:31, 1 July 2016 The current version contains material similar to what was deleted.[1] inserted with Revision as of 08:44, 24 July 2017 citing Römer (p.131), Murawski(p. 68) and the decree by Walther von Brauchitsch.

Addendum: The Wb article was reviewed as GA 5 February 2017. In these two posts[2][3] at Talk:Werner Mölders on 17 February 2017, Assayer discusses with KEC both Murawski and Römer in some detail, that a Wb mention is an award, with a summary and pages to the latter. (added Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC))

Editing Feb - Mar 2018 and edit skirmish

See recent edit history. There was a minor edit skirmish with the editor who returned the material to the article with a reduction to that by KEC,Revision as of 03:38, 28 February 2018. That edit by KEC essentially deleted material attributed to Murawski.

KEC posted at the talk page with the comment: [Murawski] as a former propagandist, ... does not appear to be a credible source on the topic. KEC then took silence as consent. Several reverts were made. Following a final revert by KEC Revision as of 00:38, 27 March 2018, KEC then removed the text: Römer stated that, for the German military, awards and decorations created an indispensable environment of incentives and willingness to risk ones live in combat., from what had been their preferred version, on 7 April 2018 with this edit summary comment: likely wp:coatrack - will preserve on talk.

Observation

KEC appears to be demonstrating ownership tendencies.

Initial removal of Wb mention as an award

KEC discusses a "named mention" being an award at Wb:talk Military commendation?. This discussion identifies a source by Klietmann (which KEC dismisses as a WP:QS) and the citation to the oiginal decree. The discussion is between KEC and one other.

The other editor concludes: Sorry K.e.coffman, but for me the question is already settled. These Wehrmachtberichte existed and the mentions there were considered an award, of the lowest level, I suppose.

In this discussion at MilHist, KEC (linking to Wb thread above) states: I've previously attempted to find sources on the Wehrmachtbericht as a military commendation, but was unsuccessful[4]. In this post, they were then directed to Murawski.[5] along with some quoted text. In 2018, KEC removed text cited to Murawski on the claim that it does not appear to be a "credible source".

KEC has used Uziel in their edidts to the Wb article including adding them as a reference and citing them Revision as of 09:06, 2 June 2016 here for example.

Uziel on Murawski says: "... the book provides good background ... it has several short comings ... " these related to access to wartime records held by the Allies. "His sources were limited ... [including] the bulletins themselves ... he was attempting to write a serious work of academic research, but without the most important records ...". pp. 12 - 13 My "quick glimpse" of Uziel left me with the impression that they refer to Murawski often, by way of analysis.

Note: KEC makes a passing reference to Uziel in context of Wb reports as awards at Talk:Erwin Rommel.

Observations

1. I observe that the decree, as a primary source making it an award was a suitable source per WP:RSPRIMARY. KEC was aware of this the source.
2. Claiming the award was "prestigious" would require a secondary source if this requires analysis (ie not mentioned in the primary source) or if this was "perceived" as being prestigious.
3. The only other editor commenting at Wb talk concluded it was an award.
4. KEC was reasonably aware of other secondary sources on a Wb mention being an award at about the time the reference was removed from the article.
5. Relevant sections of text from Murawski were quoted by another editor. If the quoted section (and citation) was not sufficient confirmation, a fuller quote could have been asked for. I note the strained relationship between KEC and the other editor. However, there is an "assumption of good faith" that could have been used with a link to that discussion.
6. KEC's later labeling of Murawski appears inconsistent with Uziel and their apparent knowledge of Uziel.
7. In off article talk (at MilHist), KEC appears to imply that they have been thorough in trying to identify a source in support.
8. KEC nominated Wb for GAR and it was promoted. The Wb as an award issue appears to be a matter of coverage. As a page editor, I would have been troubled by the evidence that it was an award and would have taken more steps to address this.
9. KEC's removal of detail from the Wb article has bearing on removal of material from other articles.

Conclusions

1. KEC appears to be manipulating information in article space that is inconsistent with their POV.
2. Sanitising article material to a POV is the substance of KEC's allegations in this case.
3. KEC's actions appear to be culpable, by act and (particularly) ommission.

Edits to other articles with Wehrmachtbericht comments in summary

{work in progress}

Preface

On the basis that a mention in the Wb was an award for both individuals and awards, translated transcripts of mentions had been progressively added to articles over an extended period up to and for a short period after KEC commenced editing in respect to these translations. Initially, KEC added text that made it explicit that the Wb mention was from a propaganda source. KEC then commenced to remove the transcripts from articles, replacing them with a date summary of mentions. Apart from edits to the Wb article, most (all?) of the edit summaries with Wb in the comment relate to the removal of the transcript. Case studies (below) indicate the KEC has subsequently removed the date summaries of mentions from article. In the cases identified, the mentions have been removed with other material and comments do not explicitly mention the removal of the Wb date summary mentions.

Chronology

KEC's first edits to bio articles were in December 2015 where they prefaced Wb translations with: The daily Wehrmachtbericht (Wehrmacht propaganda report) noted the following across about 30 articles - example

With this Revision as of 05:33, 8 April 2016 and the comment: Rm WP:OR citing from a propaganda report. Matters in respect to this are documented at #Erich Marcks, below.

• Obsevation: The relevance of Wb mentions as an award had not been contested by KEC at the Wb article at this point. citing from Wb is not WP:OR. The edit summary might reasonably "appear" to be an allegation.

At Erwin Rommel

KEC's next removal was at Erwin Rommel Revision as of 08:31, 30 May 2016 with the summary:Talk:Erwin_Rommel/Archive_5#Wehrmachtbericht_references

• A premptive discussion had been initiated by KEC Revision as of 06:01, 8 April 2016 and not responded to:[6] ... It is citing [a] propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. [it is citing ] a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value ... I've seen these removed from articles such as in Bach-Zelewski.
  • Note: KEC did not initially remove the material at Erich von dem Bach-ZelewskiRevision as of 06:12, 19 January 2016 it was replaced on 30 May and removed again after some discussion. See #Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski below for details
• KEC removed of the transcript on 30 May was reverted.
• At Talk:Erwin Rommel, KEC starts a new thread, that refers to the original Revision as of 19:37, 30 May 2016
  • Observation: KEC's opening gambit was quite neutral and was suggestive of replacing the transcripts with date summaries of mentions.
• The discussion involved two other editors.
• It refers to actions/discussion at Talk:Erich von Manstein preceding at least the conclusion of the discussion at Rommel.
• KEC notes there that they have been removing the direct transcripts elsewhere as the tread has continued. same diff immediately below (specifically, at Michael Wittmann Revision as of 19:51, 3 June 2016)
• The proposal at talk favoured was: Mentioned twice on the Wehrmachtbericht (21 June 1942 and 10 September 1943), as noted by KEC.same diff immediately below
• At talk, Revision as of 01:13, 6 June 2016 KEC states: We can see how the consensus continue to develop.
• Before the next revision at talk on this thread Revision as of 01:30, 6 June 2016 KEC had made this edit to remove the material and replace with dates of mention.
• In this Revision as of 03:18, 21 July 2016 KEC makes this notification: Update: please see discussion at NPOV noticeboard on the topic. According to feedback there, these quotations fail WP:UNDUE.

At Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski

Note: KEC did not initially remove the transcript from Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski - Revision as of 06:12, 19 January 2016

• The removal was reverted: Revision as of 15:04, 30 May 2016
• See talk at Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. It was initiate by KEC on 1 June: ... [it] is citing from ... [a] propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. ... [It is] a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value ...
• The discussion there involves five editors in total, including KEC, the original removing editor and one that offers no specific comment on retaining.
  • Note: One of the comments there was that Bach-Zelewski was an exception in that the he was not acting as a soldier in a military action (ie, it was not for combat).
• KEC adds this comment that: According to feedback [at NPOV noticeboard] there these quotations fail WP:UNDUE
• KEC concludes with a post Revision as of 07:20, 22 July 2016 that other articles include dates of mentions rather than transcripts and: This was arrived at by consensus at Talk:Manstein#Wehrmachtbericht and Talk:Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht, as well as at this Talk page. giving these links.[7] and [8]

At Erich von Manstein

At Erich von Manstein, a Wb transcript was added on 31 May 2016 and reverted by KEC Revision as of 15:20, 1 June 2016

• KEC quickly reverts with comment: please achieve consensus on Talk page for this addition.
• The initial editor quikly reverts with this comment: the topic had been raised at the GA level, the wording is accepted at various articles gone to FAC.
  • Note: The initial editor is out of the BRD cycle but has offered a "justification" but falls to WP:OTHER and is not developed.
• KEC quickly initiates talk At Talk:Erich von Manstein Revision as of 15:21, 1 June 2016: I reverted to ... [the date summary version] ... [it] was citing from ... [a] propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. ... [t is] a piece of propagana that has no informative value ...Revision as of 15:21, 1 June 2016
  • Observation: the opening gambit is used repeatedly. Please check fuller text for confirmation.
  • Note: I offer no defence of the inital editor's actions.
• Apart fron KEC and the initial editor, four comments are offered. One is a question.
• KEC adds this comment Revision as of 03:11, 21 July 2016 (well after the preceding comment of 2 June) that: According to feedback [at NPOV noticeboard] there these quotations fail WP:UNDUE

NPOV noticeboard

KEC initiated a discussion there on 30 June 2016.[9] The discussion continued until 20 July. The discussion opens with the following:

Many articles ... contain verbatim quotations ... the Wehrmachtbericht. It's ... (inherently unreliable) ... Nazi propaganda ... [that] does not belong ... on this basis alone. ... This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? (Please see fuller text)

• Most significant is that KEC does not represent the context in which the transcripts have been provided. This could lead to comments made at facevalue. Following the discussion link alone may not give the context since since it is a long thread that does not describe it as an award until near the end.
  • The noticeboard advice on posting there includes: Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. Also, per WP:FORUMSHOP: Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions.
  • Observation: This may fall to misrepresentation by omission.
• A number of the comments appear qualified - particularly until KEC provides example with the statement: they are reproduced within the articles as shown above
  • Placing these examples at the discussion was made without the context of where they appeared in the atricle they were extracted from and without making it explicit that they were drawn from separate articles.
    • Note: The following comments were made after KEC posted the examples: Yes, I see now ... and I had seen the transcripts before I commented. These two editors then make further qualified statements where and when they might be used.
    • Observation: The two editor's comments does indicate that they had initially commented on facevalue. Their subsequent comments donot suggest to me that they are aware of the context in which the quotes had been used.
• The discussion was not formally closed.

Spreadsheet analysis

There are over 700 edits by KEC with Wb in the edit summary. There are nearly 160 edits to the Wb article and a small number to other articles directly relating to the Wb article. The others are to bio and unit articles for the most part. The majoriy of all edits (about 450) occur in June and July 2016 - of which, about 40 were to the Wb article. So, about 400 edits were to bios and unit articles. About 260 of these occurred in the two weeks either side of 20 July, of which, about 170 were in the week starting 20 July.

Over 300 of the edit summaries included the word "transcript", while over 80 included a link to Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. This accounted for all 415 edits to other articles (ie not the Wb article) in the seven weeks ending 20 July 2016. This was confirmed by reductions in article size and viewing of many edit diffs.

There are in the order of 30 cases where KEC's removal of the transcripts has apparently been challenged.

At Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Transcript quotes were added Revision as of 10:50, 8 October 2011 KEC removed these: [Revision as of 08:22, 25 July 2016 Revision as of 08:22, 25 July 2016] with comment: Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report

• KEC's removal was reverted Revision as of 12:10, 25 July 2016 with comment: No, no. I've checked and there was no consensus and still is no consensus for this.
• KEC opens talk Revision as of 01:14, 26 July 2016
• KEC's opening gambit is: By my count 11 editors were for the removal of the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts
  • Note: consensus is not a vote.
• KEC goes on to refer to the the NPOV discussion (above), Bach-Zelewski, Rommel and Manstein.
  • Note: There are issues with representations at NPOVN per above, the other two fall to WP:OTHER.
  • Observation: Two links are a limited basis for WP:Other to be justifiable. With the issues with the NPOVN link, this is a questionable basis for mass edits per the spreadsheet analysis.
• KEC remove transcript quote Revision as of 03:39, 20 October 2016 with comment: Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue; see Wehrmachtbericht vs London Gazette)
  • Note: the edit replaced the transcripts with the dates of mention. See #Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht below.

Later events to remove date summary of mentions at Hans-Ulrich Rudel

What appears to be an SPA then removed the dates of mention: Revision as of 07:48, 15 February 2017

• This was reverted with comment Rv undiscussed removal of cited material -- suggest taking to talk page A minor edit skirmish followed with a third and fourth party being involved.[10][11][12][13] See also user talk, where the proponent for deletion advocates: "Just passing peer review for a "good article" and being A-graded in a Wiki-project does not concensus make for every detail in the article." If anything, it is a case of what it doesn't contain.
• It was ultimately deleted by KEC Revision as of 17:21, 29 April 2017 with the comment: no consensus for the Wehrmachtbericht being a military award; the cat has been previously deleted

Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht

This discussion was started at MilHist on 11 August 2016 by an involved editor. In the opening gambit, it refers to the edit summary used by KEC to remove transcripts: Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report

• Note: This discussion is referred to at #Initial removal of Wb mention as an award, and the quote to KEC: I've previously attempted to find sources ..., there.
• Observation: the discussion leans toward KEC's view but is not clear and was not formally closed.

Wehrmachtbericht transcript on Talk pages (revisited)

This is a thread at MilHist initiated by KEC on 2 January 2017 because of attempts to preserve the transcript translations on talk pages, which they oppose.

• KEC had reverted posting, which had been opposed.
  • Note: KEC raised the matter at MilHist.
  • Observation: This appears to go contrary to some comments WRT the appropriateness of raising concerns there by others.
• Opinion by Nick-D is to preserve the transcripts at Wikisource.
  • A similar comment was made at NPOVN.

My position on content issues

I don't support the inclusion of the Wb transcripts but I do believe that the date summaries of mentions should be included on the basis that they were decreed to be an award. However, there are instances where quoting the transcripts might be appropriate.

Such cases might be where the transcript, in the case of Rommel, where the transcript is in contradiction with the strength of defence at Tobruk. The transcript could be inserted to contrast "reality" with how events were portrayed by the Germans. As such, the Wb transcript might be used as a juxtaposition without requiring analysis on the part of an editor but allows readers to draw their own conclusions. This does rely on correctly identifying the nature of the Wb in such an instance. In the case of Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, a similar quotation may be made to contrast with what they were reported as doing compared to what they were actually doing. A comment raised at Talk:Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was that the Wb transcript appears euphemistic. This could be developed using an appropriate secondary source in conjunction with the Wb quote. These observation as to where such transcripts might reasonably be used are in direct contrast with KEC's position that: a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value.

My conclusions

My conclusions go to process and not whether they are ultimately justifiable.

KEC has made mass changes without gaining a broad consensus. Nick-D has made a comment that it would have been better to have sought a broader basis for their actions. This is significant to how KEC has approached this series of edits and many others. The opposition to KEC's edits, in my opinion, goes largely to how they have approached "issues" such as this, rather than what they seek to correct.

There is evidence that their approach has resulted in disruption where a different approach, as indicated by Nick-D would likely have been less disruptive.

KEC has mainly relied on local consensus at three articles. There is also NPOVN and the concerns noted above. The process used has an appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:OTHER. The discussions at the articles had limited engagement and do not give a strong mandate for the scale of action. There is also the matter of speed and that KEC has has made these changes en masse over a very short period of time, even as the discussions at the three articles was developing. I particularly note at Rommel, where KEC states: We can see how the consensus continue to develop, yet they act unilaterally less than 20 minutes later. There is also the matter of the timeline over which the threads at the local articles developed. Viewed at their conclusion, they are stronger than through the time when they were applied.

KEC appears to have misconstrued WP:Primary source and WP:OR. Even representing the transcripts as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV appear to be a very strict interpretation and tenuous, given the lengths that they have gone to highlight the nature of their source in articles and where the transcript occurred. The use and misapplication of these guidelines give the appearance of wikilawyering when this is more simply a case of unnecessary detail.

The often silent subsequent removal of date summaries of mentions appears disingenuous.

There is also evidence of edit warring, in which I note that it is difficult to edit war with oneself. Also, while they have repeatedly referenced the correct BRD process where others fail, in their opinion, to apply it correctly, there appears to be evidence that they too have misapplied it.

As a case study, I believe this to be indicative of many other mass changes that KEC has made.

Case studies of articles

Erich Marcks

• KEC had made numerous edits reducing the article before removing the Wb transcripts on 8 April 2016.
• The removal was quickly reverted with the comment: restore cited information
• KEC initiated discussion on the talk page. The post commenced: What is the purpose of this section in the article?
  • Observation: This opening gambit appears somewhat confrontational.
• KEC takes no response at talk to be consensus and reverts Revision as of 06:49, 5 June 2016 with comment: Undue, OR Wehrmachtbericht transcript

Random samples

Selected by random number generator from the set of articles with Wb in comments

Adolf Strauss (general)

KEC Rm Wb transcript Revision as of 03:46, 25 July 2016 with comment: Wehrmachtbericht references: Undue -- pls see Talk:Erich_von_dem_Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht_report. No revert/talk discussion Edit replaced these with dates of mentions.

No other talk discussions relevant to KEC.

Article created 2008. Peak size about 10,000 B, Current size 4,462 B. Wb transcript added Revision as of 09:47, 28 January 2014 and following edit.

Second edit by KEC was to tag article Revision as of 22:47, 17 July 2016 Article had several references but no inline citations except to Wb transcripts.

KEC made six more edits until the largest: Revision as of 23:37, 24 February 2017. This included:

• Removing places of birth and death from info box.
• Adding: As with all German armies on the Eastern Front, Strauss's 9th Army implemented the criminal Commissar Order. citing Stahel,2015,p. 28.
• It removed the date mentions in the Wb.

Mitcham, SW (2010) : Men of Barbarossa ISBN 978-1-935149-15-6. Men of Barbarossa From this, the place of birth could be seen.

Note: the use of "criminal" appears not to be verifiable per Stahel.

Hans Schlemmer

KEC rm Wb transcript unopposed Revision as of 20:58, 21 July 2016 with comment: Wehrmachtbericht references: Verbatim Wehrmachtbericht transcript. Replaced with dates of mentions.

Article is a stub with no talk page threads. Wb transcript added Revision as of 05:31, 23 March 2014 plus next 2 edits. Created 2010. Max size ca 9,000 B. Now 4,338 B.

• Total five edits by KEC.
• Second edit added notability tag.
• In the Revision as of 04:33, 1 January 2017
  • Removed awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership
  • Removed places of birth and death from info box with comment: streamline infobox
• Revision as of 00:19, 26 March 2017 removes date mentions in Wb with comment: immaterial propaganda
  • Revision also comments out WWI references in info box.

Selected samples

These articles were "chosen" because of the edit comments made by KEC and that they then related to each other.

Walter_Oesau

Out of order that articles were reviewed. I came to this because of the edit summary by KEC: pls see Talk:Walter_Oesau#Wehrmachtbericht_transcript in reference to removing Wb transcripts. Please see #Friedrich Geisshardt below. Six edits had this edit summary, including this article

The post linked in the comment, Talk:Walter_Oesau#Wehrmachtbericht_transcript reads:

• I'm removing the Wehrmachtbericht transcript; pls see discussion at NPOV noticeboard on the topic. According to feedback there these quotations fail WP:UNDUE."

The revision was not reverted and no further posts were made to the thread started on the talk page.

Max size about 48 kB mid-2016. Current size 39,129 B. The article was listed as GA in February 2009.

KEC made 19 edits and, bar two, they reduced size.

• 1st added as underlined: During his career, Oesau was mentioned five times in the Wehrmachtbericht. These were the daily propaganda reports ...[14]
• 3rd edit (Revision as of 10:13, 19 July 2016) was to remove all external links. Comment: link of dubious accuracy
• 5th edit was to remove the Wb transcripts Revision as of 03:01, 21 July 2016. The article contained a statement that there had been five mentions in the Wb and this was retained.
• 6th edit removed coordinates in infobox to place of birth (Friedhof Meldorf Meldorf, Germany) and place of death (St. Vith, Belgium) with comment: not a grave directory[15]
  • Note: These are parameters in the infobox from which they were removed.
• Revision as of 02:05, 16 May 2017 removed signature from infobox. Comment: sig unneeded for a jr commander
• Revision as of 02:07, 16 May 2017 removed dates of ranks with comment: intricate detail for a non-senior commander ...
  • Note: IMO, progression through ranks is a pertinent detail as it is an indicator of performance.
• Revision as of 00:22, 23 May 2017 removed reference to mentions in Wb with comment: original research cited to a primary source
  • Note: in context, using the primary source is not inappropriate to support that the mentions existed nor is it original research.
• Last edit, Revision as of 01:09, 23 May 2017 added two tags - overly detailed, unreliable sources. Talk:Walter Oesau#Tags refers.

KEC's post at talk page:

The article contains seven citations to a self-published fan site:

• Kacha, Petr (2007). "Walter Oesau". Luftwaffe.cz. Retrieved 20 February 2007. This also has complete list of his kills by dates, target and location.

In addition, it contains a citation to an fringe publication:

• Huß, Jürgen; Viohl, Armin (2003). Die Ritterkreuzträger des Eisernen Kreuzes der preußischen Provinz Schleswig-Holstein und der Freien und Hansestadt Lübeck 1939–1945 (trans_title=The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross Bearers of the Prussian Province of Schleswig-Holstein and the Free and Hanseatic City of Lübeck 1939–1945) (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-79-9.

I'm sure that other sources used in the article can be unpacked in a similar fashion. Given the WP:QS sources, the level of detail in the article is undue. I tagged the article accordingly."

*Note: Comments per reliability appear to be unsubstantiated POV (ie, an opinion is offered but without substance). The point of comment: This also has complete list of his kills by dates is unclear. luftwaffe.cz has a bibliography but not inline citations. It appears to be criticised for using what KEC describes as a fringe publication.

• For context: AIRcorn responded on the talk page and removed sources/citations.

Friedrich Geisshardt

I looked at this article as it was the first I came across with the edit summary by KEC: pls see Talk:Walter_Oesau#Wehrmachtbericht_transcript in reference to removing Wb transcripts.

Removal of Wb transcript by KEC Revision as of 03:03, 21 July 2016 The edit left: Mentioned three times in the Wehrmachtbericht

Text of mentions in Wb was removed by KEC Revision as of 05:33, 28 May 2017 with edit summary: no consensus for the Wehrmachtbericht being a military award ...

KEC's Revision as of 06:53, 4 June 2017 adds tags: unreliable sources and one source.

KEC posts to Talk:Friedrich Geisshardt#Tags as follows:

The article is largely sourced to a WP:QS catalog of Knight's Cross winners:

• Obermaier, Ernst (1989). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe Jagdflieger 1939 – 1945 (The Knight's Cross Bearers of the Luftwaffe Fighter Force 1939 – 1945) (in German). Mainz, Germany: Verlag Dieter Hoffmann. ISBN 978-3-87341-065-7.

Most of the citations are to a single page from the source (p. 51) so one wonders how the article could be a summary of that one page. In any case, I tagged the article accordingly."

Note: The statement of WP:QS is unsubstantiated in the post. There are 9 citations to Obermaier and 13 to other sources. KEC's characterisation of "most" is probably not accurate. I observe that earlier versions used additional sources but these have been successively removed by KEC

Edit war

• In part, in this Revision as of 03:42, 17 February 2017 KEC removes: Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub
• Replaced same day[16] with edit summary: best practice
  • Note: this was the material edited out by KEC.
  • KEC observed in a later discussion elsewhere: WP:Consensus applies to both removal and addition of content, as I understand it.[17]
• Reverted by KEC without starting talk. Edit Summary: Pls see MOS:FOREIGN: "foreign words should be used sparingly"; this is also unneeded as interested readers can click on the link[18]
• Counter reverted (same editor MisterBee). Edit Summary: agreed so it is only used once familiarize yourself with best practices
  • Note: MOS:FOREIGN might reasonably be considered "best practice". It stares: Foreign words should be used sparingly. A single use for a particular word/phrase would seem compliant. The statement appears clear enough.
• KEC initiates Talk:Friedrich Geisshardt#Recent edit with two posts.[19][20]
  • Note: With the second post KEC acknowledges the meaning but questions "best practice".
• KEC reverts Revision as of 04:10, 4 March 2017 with comment: BRD -- no discussion on Talk page; pls see: Talk:Friedrich_Geisshardt#Recent_edit
  • Note: KEC has assumed silence as consent to their edit. I Would observe that by this time, the opposing editor is probably not well disposed toward KEC and that silence is probably appropriate on their part. Also note the elapse of time.
• Reinstatement by a third party the same day plus other text.[21]
• KEC reverted foreign language part of reinstatement same day.[22]
• MisterBee reverts same day with comment: legitimate Revision as of 18:48, 4 March 2017
• KEC makes new thread to talk on that day: Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections. They link to a discussion at MilHist commenced by Assayer on 13 February 2017 This post by Assayer Revision as of 20:56, 18 February 2017 appears to be what KEC is referring to but it does contain the translation, which KEC has omitted on the talk page.
  • Note: this appears to be a misrepresentation of what was discussed and presented by Assayer.

KEC appears confrontational to many

On Mass actions

BMK makes the following observation in an ANI case unrelated to MilHist (ANI archive). I believe it is indicative of why KEC has experience opposition from within MilHist and what would have been a better approach. Through comments across the evidence provided in this case and links from evidence, I believe it reasonable to assert that there is a prevailing perception that KEC is confrontational by many (not all), which arises, in part, from this. This also goes to comment by Nick-D

Any normal Wikipedia action will generally be considered to be run the risk of being considered disruptive if done en masse, unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass action is acceptable. The only way to get that agreement is with some kind of centralized consensus discussion, which did not occur in this case. It's clear from this very discussion that views on the appropriateness of the tagging differ widely, and that, in and of itself, is an indication that Redban's bold edit was not, on the face of it, one that would have easily received a consensus agreement. Redban's mass edits should be mass-overturned, he should start a centralized discussion regarding the subjects he (or HW) believes should be tagged (and that discussion should not take place here), and Redban should take onboard the lesson that there was a better way to go about what he wished to do. Should he do it again, he should be considered to have been suitably warned, and should be blocked for deliberate disruption, and individual editors who take it upon themselves to re-tag these articles without prior discussion should be warned to stop and talk before acting. BMK (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On GA/FA articles

WP:BOLD (a guideline document) states: Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive.

WP:OWN (a policy document) states: While Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version ...

[On Good articles] All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended ...

I would observe that KEC has generally ignored the above advice. The advice identifies the consequences of doing so. These consequences go to the heart of many of the claims and allegations they have made and particularly as they relate to or arise from editing of GA and FA articles.

KEC's talk page comments

KEC is generally polite; however, I believe that their language and style of discussion creates a strong negative impression in those that might have more than passing contact with them and are on the opposite side of a discussion. Their talk-page language has a strong editorial tone that is not conducive to an objective discussion (since editorialising is inherantly subjective. They make representations in such a way that they appear to be unquestionable fact. Where they do offer a basis for a statement, the basis is often a broad generalisation. Generalisations are inherantly subjective.

KEC frequently uses words an phrases that are a jargon (eg a pulp writer, known fabulist, apologist and Landser pulp). There are a number of issues that arise from use jargon. A lot of this type of language is very subjective in nature and is not conducive to an objective discussion. It also has derogatory and even pejorative connotations. There is a degree of transference that arises from such use. Such labeling by KEC in opposition to certain language or sources in an article is transferred in some degree to a person who opposes KEC's position. It is therefore a matter of civility, even if it is unintentional. Within groups, the jargon of group tends has the effect of excluding outsiders from the group. It is an issue with many professions at the interface with non-professionals, such as doctors and patients and between experts and novices within a profession or calling. It lends to an air of superiority and the negative connotations associated with that.

There is then the repetitive use of phrases within a thread and even whole passages across talk pages. Language is full of unwritten and unsaid meanings. "If I say something often enough, it must be true", even if it isn't. This sort of repetition can suggest weakness of argument on the one hand. On the other, it can convey an air of superiority through an unwritten meaning: "I said it before but you still don't get it" or "I said it before, so you should get it by now".

KEC frequently closes an opening gambit with: Please let me know if there are any concerns. This is seemingly quite polite; however, if one does reply to raise a concern (and does so more than once, ie somewhere else), an unwritten meaning soon becomes clear. My first experience was at Talk:World War II reenactment. An unwritten meaning soon becomes clear: "I am being outwardly polite but your opinion doesn't count". KEC then (often appears to) make a reply which is often lengthy full of many of the negative identified above. Yes, we might all do this sometime too.

I am not saying this is intentional but it is how I see things and I believe that others probably do to.

You don't have to be confrontational

Please see the edit history (last 500) and talk pages of Hermann Graf a GWE article and Junayd of Aydın. I have significantly copy-edited both articles. I have addressed many of the types of issues of language, POV, undue, detail, peacock words etc in both articles. In Graf, I may not have done everything I might have, but there were significant changes. It is a case of compromise and consensus. Also, others picked up on some things I didn't. The point is, that in both cases I was able to make significant changes that were generally accepted and without confrontation.

Talk:Erich Hoepner/GA1

Comments by Euryalus as reviewer.[23]

1. Would remove “criminal” before Commissar order because it sounds as if that is Wikipedia’s voice, and also duplicates the end of that sentence re contravening laws of war. (btw would be good to clarify what we mean by “laws of war’ – ie what convention or international agreement set these laws in this instance). Alternatively, we would need a specific source for “criminal” as it has a particular meaning beyond violation of a convention – criminal under what national or international law?

4. Do we know what happened to his family after the war?

5. Overall, this is a comprehensive summary of Hoepner’s military career, with some interesting additions and quotes on his views and itnerpretations of different stages of activity. It would have been good to have a bit more about the nam as an individual (ie not just a soldier), and some further background on his early life. But we’re obviously limited by the soruces we have, which seem fairly comprehensively reviewed.

KEC at Erich Hoepner had added (in part): As with all German armies on the Eastern Front, Hoepner's Panzer Group implemented the criminal Commissar Order.(Stahel,2015,p.)[24]

"Criminal" in this phrase was removed by KEC Revision as of 01:36, 20 April 2018

Observation: if Stahel had specifically referred to the commissar order as being criminal, there was no reason to remove "criminal" in the context. The conclusion is that Stahel does not. A search of "criminal commissar order" returned ten hits.[25]

Observations

The type of detail mentioned by the reviewer is almost exactly the type of detail that KEC routinely removes as "excessive intricate detail".

The comment by the reviewer per "criminal", and its insertion by KEC, might be viewed as an NPOV issue of the the type that KEC raises in this case. It, in part, supports my view that they have a POV and that the POV is less than neutral.

Alternate history department thread at MilHist

In a discussion of sources at MilHist ostensibly about reliability of sources (with the heading: WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles), KEC creates a subsection: Alternate history department.[26] This section is nearly 1700 words, with commentary (written in an editorial style: These are typical tropes in the "parallel universe" WWII content) on posts made by one editor across many articles. The intent appears to be to ridicule the named editor in a very public forum.

Case study on Reliability of sources claims by KEC

At Talk:Waldemar von Gazen KEC makes this comment without substantiation: Williamson is non RS for the purpose of establishing notability.

This appears to be an unsubstantiated opinion. It may imply a reference to the wiki atricle: Gordon Williamson (writer) Revision as of 20:47, 4 June 2016, which was substantially edited by KEC (article before KEC)

• That article as at 4 June 2016 has the appearance of being a coatrack for a commentary on a "contemporary trend" by Simon MacKenzie by way of a quote, which appears to occupy about on about one-third of the text in that section. This is the only section in the body of the article apart from the list of works. While it may relate to Williamson, it is somewhat peripheral to them as the subject of a WP article.

KEC has inserted this: MacKenzie includes Williamson's books among the works that perpetuate the myth-making, revisionist tendencies in the treatment of the Waffen-SS, first put forth by HIAG, a lobby group founded by former high-ranking Waffen-SS personnel in West Germany in 1951.

• This preceding passage appears to be synthesis or original research by KEC (as follows).

Looking at MacKenzie[27] on part of KEC since commentary regarding HAIG was directed at another author, Mabire. In the passage dealing with Williamson, It commences: "England also has its share of admirers ..." MacKenzie groups Williams with author Blanford: "that they sought to restore the tarnished moral reputation of the Waffen-SS". Of Williamson specifically, "[He]at least approaches his subjects with a degree of skepticism".

• I note, comment by KEC at HAIG FA review: MacKenzie does connect present-day popular/militaria literature as continuing HIAG's revisionist tradition. --K.e.coffman [28]

• Mackenie's opinion per Williamson is certainly reasonable to note. However, KEC's version appears to have significant issues.
  • It appears to belabour the negative appearance of Williamson's works beyond what is sufficient to establish MacKenie's opinion.
  • It appears to contain negative characterisations of Williamson that are peripheral to Williamson as an article subject at best, and OR/Synth by KEC that, togeather "enhances" the negative appearance of Williamson to such an extent that is appears to be a gross misrepresentation of MacKenzie's opinion in respect to Williamson.
  • Further, MacKenzie on Williamson appears to be more of a passing observation than a detailed critical assessment, since the Google books search only indicated one specific name mention in MacKenzie.
  • Also of note, is that MacKenzie is the only source used to provide opinion in what is a very short article.
    • My conclusion is that there appears to be a significant issue of WEIGHT, ballance and POV.

• I would note that von Gazen was part of the Wehrmacht (AFAIK). Mackenzie's book was published in 1997. It does not reflect on Williamson subsequently nor outside the subject of the Waffen-SS.
• The comment by KEC at Talk:Waldemar von Gazen would appear to be directed at this work by Williamson (2005) first published by Osprey Publishing and currently by Bloomsbury Publishing.

Implications of case study

{will add links to other articles of potential concern}

I have observed that KEC has frequently created pages or heavily edited existing pages that relate to sources, authors or publishers where they subsequently refer to same in support of their assessments, intentions or actions WRT GWE articles. Where I have viewed these, I have noted a tendency in such articles to belabour certain points or opinions beyond what I would consider reasonable to establish a sourced opinion or a balanced POV in the article. From the case study of Williamson, the following become apparent to me:

• KEC appears to be manipulating article content to create an UNDUE (greatly exagerated) negative bias.
• KEC appears to be then be using this to censor sources used in other articles and consequently, article content..
• Both actions appear to have been done knowingly and willfully to an extent (in this case study) that implies culpability.
• To some lesser extent, such allegations mirror those being made by KEC in the GWE case against others (noting that generally, their allegations do not assert concious choices or culpability).

To KEC's general allegations per WP:IRS, WP:OR and like

I would observe, that while Mackenzie's work (see above) is of a scholarly nature and the material referred of weight, it is MacKenzie's opinion and not fact. See WP:NPOVS and specifically Reliable sources are never neutral. I make this observation in regard to how KEC has characterised and assessed comments by others in the course of the GWE case. In most cases, the issues raised by or attributed to other editors is in respect to garnering facts from a source and not opinion. This might include matters such as: date of birth, place of birth, dates of promotion, employment before the war, where somebody was at a particular time, that they were granted a particular award and even that the award was ostensibly for doing something particular.

KEC has referred to extracting such material as WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The counterpoint; however, is how KEC would determine whether a scorce is reliable or not and whether or not everything derived from it should be discarded. This process might also fall to WP:SYNTH and here, KEC refers to this process by them as "analysis". The allegations being made by them then appears somewhat of a connundrum, if not a contradiction.

References

Misrepresentations and personal attack by MastCell

This section is taken from my statement at the case request and this post. That post dealt with interations between KEC and myself in the first instance and how these had been misrepresented by MastCell in one of their case request statement posts, in the second. The purpose of this section is to more clearly distinguish that which is specific to my allegation of misconduct made by me as part of the case. It is done to clarify that which is relevant to this allegation.

Annotations have been added in small text, except for the last two dot-points, which are from the original.

• User:MastCell[29] has alledged I "tag-teamed" They fail to report the involvement of @User:Neutrality.

• They do not substantiate this allegation, which requires more than simply observing that four editors were involved and that two opposed the reinsertion by KEC.
• Reinstatements were made without accurately acknowledging the recent prior consensus and without establishing a new consensus.

• They have not accurately represented the chain of events.

See World War II reenactment: Revision history], Talk:World War II reenactment and Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit thread at MilHist.

• They represent the reason for my reversion as: complain[ing] that the article paints people in an unflattering light just because they like to dress up as Waffen-SS. The link given by User:MastCell is in the earlier discussion - the context of time has been misrepresented.

The earlier discussion was the thread of the proposed move by KEC.

• My actual statement was: At present, there is an implied syllogism that all members Waffen-SS re-enactment groups are racist neo-Nazis. This may be the case but it must be verified - not to mention the validity of such an hypothesis per Karl Popper. This is an objection well founded in logic and the rationale for my objection is quite different from the representation given by User:MastCell.

I refer to Popper in regard to his work on the philosophy of science and falsifiability. It is a reference to a logical fallacy that arises from false generalisations and whether all can ever be accurately asserted from an open set, since the membership of such a set cannot be established absolutely. These are issues of weight and NPOV, which KEC appears to acknowledge in response to an earlier similar and less detailed response by me.

• I believe that the sequence of events and my actions have been grossly misrepresented. I believe that the comments and allegation are unsubstantiated.
• This is not the first instance in which User:MastCell has been cited for misrepresenting the comments by other editors here (see comment by @User:The ed17 and "selective" quoting of @Peacemaker67).[30] Note: I first came to this article as the result of a notification on the MilHist talk page by Ke[31] and have kept it on my watch list.

The last two points are from the original case request post and have been reiterated in direct evidence.

Extract from relevent part of longer post by MastCell

This is a direct copy of the relevant dot-point posted by MastCell.

• At World War II reenactment, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs) removes a great deal of properly sourced material (about the unsavory side of reenactment), leaving behind only the apologetics; his edit is ostensibly "prep for proper sourcing and expansion", although to my knowledge no such expansion ever takes place. Cinderella157 (talk · contribs), a MILHIST coordinator, jumps in to keep the content out, in tandem with LargelyRecyclable, and complains that the article paints people in an unflattering light just because they like to dress up as Waffen-SS (!)

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