User talk:LargelyRecyclable/Archives/ 1

Can you say what other account or accounts you have used? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I started editing over ten years ago and this is my only active account since I came out of retirement, so to speak. I'd be happy to work with a private check user though. I trust DGG to perform it if that's what you'd like. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that this account immediately started disputes concerning articles developed by K.e.coffman and has engaged in personal attacks on him and others, I don't think that this is a good faith clean start. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Well then, alright. I guess I only have two questions. What do you think I've said or done that constitutes a personal attack, and do you, objectively, think this improved the article? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Historians

This is getting into philosophical debate territory, so I'm moving this here. Here's the M-W's definition of a historian:

• a student or writer of history; especially: one who produces a scholarly synthesis

I agree with your criteria in terms of identifying the most reliable sources. I've frequently dealt with various hobbyist / militaria authors described as "historians" on Wiki; pls see sample here: diff. I've even had other MilHist editors tell me that I don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS (meaning any published book; cited from this GAR). Multiple editors argued that Franz Kurowski was RS for military biographies at this RSN discussion, which was the impetus for the Franz Kurowski article. So your take on sources is refreshing.

But if we go with the dictionary definition, I'd say that Watson is a historian. I've read the relevant chapters from Exit Rommel, and they have struck me as a "scholarly synthesis". In any case, I follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP; it does not suggest that RS are only produced by academics that would meet the criteria that you outlined. Hope this answers your questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that being "a student or writer of history" does not qualify someone as an RS, much less as an RS historian, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to approve of. Your aforementioned objection to Kurowski is indicative of that trap. Historians as RS here must meet stricter guidelines than Webster's dictionary. I also don't see which bullet point in SCHOLARSHIP you think Watson falls under. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe

Hi- I have been accused of being you- or you of being me! "They" think you are my sock puppet or vice versa. Anyway- I'm not you so it should all work out.Makumbe (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Makumbe:, good to be acquainted. I'm disappointed that didn't get a head's up from Nick, but not surprised. On the upside, this has made me aware of at least one other editor that shares a lot of the same concerns as me. So, on that note, I very much look forward to working with you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Not Me. I am doing research now for the Panzer Ace article. It may be a month or two before I finish but on Wikipedia we have all the time in the world to get our facts straight. I find that the "in popular culture" paragraphs in many articles have the same wording and are thinly disguised editorials with a non-neutral POV. I wasn't a Panzer expert before but slowly but surely I am learning enough to edit the Panzer Ace article which used to be called "Panzer Ace" in Popular Culture. So cheers!Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's on rush. I actually had to order some obscure, abused books myself. The farther I look into what's going on the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I promised myself I'd stay off Wikipedia but when I saw what I saw while referencing something I fell off the wagon. The POV and content forking you're dealing with at Panzer Aces spreads across hundreds of articles and centers around two or three activist editors working in coordination. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes- the whole thing is a bit weird. My interest in WW2 is Eastern front mostly- I don't use Wikipedia too much for general knowledge but it should be the perfect place to find out- "top scoring German tank commander" or "Waffen SS battles"! Instead each article is infused with this editorial on " uncritical portrayal of the SS" or some such nonsense. Not facts and figures but rather Soviet style historiography. Hilarious really the propagandizing. Yes- it is a little cabal who have been left to their own naughty devices. Were it not for the Sock Puppet imbroglio I might have forgotten them...Makumbe (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it largely escaped my notice until I ran into the flat out absurdity that was the Panzer Battles article. It was then that I realized a lot of the "weird" things that had been bugging me about so many of the WII articles were all traced to the same source. The wreckage goes back over the past year and a half. MILHIST worked to push back some but a lot of them seemed to just give up and go home out of fatigue. Fortunately it seems there are still some editors out there who have a little left in them. I'll be sure to send Nick a Barnstar of Fellowship at some point in the near future. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your treatment of me has been way out of line. I've attempted to be as cordial as possible with you but you've made this very difficult. Your wholesale reverting of my edits is not constructive or in the spirit of BRD. You've even reverted my reference formatting improvements. I made as much an attempt as possible at breaking down and justifying each edit so any objections can be raised to specific edits. I suspect that we're at the point of outside intervention. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not socks!

Just thought I'd let you know we are Not Guilty of being "sock puppets". Case closed. I probably won't be editing Panzer Ace anytime soon but I do think I've pinpointed the problem in all of these articles. It is that book- The Myth of the Eastern Front- which is really an anti-gaming anti-popular culture polemic by 2 clowns. It's one of the few books I've seen on Amazon with as many 1 stars as 5 stars- 34% of readers found it stupid. I plan on reading it and others used by this little clique. When I am ready I am going to start again. Panzer Ace at least is an editorial- but they did give me my list (of aces) so I'm in no big hurry. One thing I would posit- do they really think they'd see an article like Panzer Ace or The Rommel Myth in The Encyclopedia Britannica? I think not- all opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Nebe's rank

He was never a Obergruppenführer; it is cited in the article, as well. But look at the rank collar tabs at the article Gruppenführer and you will have the "photographic" evidence. Post April 1942 SS rank collar tabs. Also, the Wikimedia copy of Nebe's photo that is used states it is a portrait of Arthur Nebe in uniform of SS-Gruppenführer (Porträt Arthur Nebe in Uniform als SS-Gruppenführer mit Orden). Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: It's a pre-changeover Obergruppenfuhrer insignia. I've added a citation for both his rank and his place in the RSHA. I'm not sure what else you want. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No its not pre-change over. I also used the (copy of the) Official SS rank book published in Germany for the article RS cite. Look at it the rank collar tabs, again. Kierzek (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've looked again and you're probably right about the insignia as his lacks the extended branch. Still, without an RS it's interpretive. I'm fine with the caption as it is, how about you?. Still, we run into the problem of him being ID's as both an Obergruppenfuhrer and a Gruppenfuhrer in various sources. Do you have an idea on where to start with a source that is definitive? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I saw your conservation. Arthur Nebe is listed as an SS-Gruppenfuhrer in the central listing of SS officers on file with Record Group 242 of the United States National Archives. These were the formal documents complied from captured German documents in 1945 which were then used for post war investigations into the SS. RG 242 also includes the original service records of the SS itself. This is the most definitive source there is on who held what SS rank and is the primary source to which all others extend. So, to answer the question, he was a Gruppenfuhrer and not an Obergruppenfuhrer. -O.R.^Comms 00:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome, thank you! Do you have a link we could reference? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the primary index of RG 242 [1]. -O.R.^Comms 00:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the corresponding microfilm or do you know where it can be found online? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Its not online, they are stored on physical microfilm at the National Archives at College Park. But, yes, I have seen them. even have a copy of Nebe's record somewhere. He was indeed a G-Fhr. -O.R.^Comms 03:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, with your permission, may I copy this discussion to the talk page of the Nebe article? -O.R.^Comms 03:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll trust your memory, although if you run across it please let me know. And, of course, anything topical on my talk page can always be transcribed to the relevant article talkspace. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you can copy it over to the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Its been done. I would suggest removing or otherwise archiving this thread here to avoid any duplicate discussions if anyone else were to see the thread in two places. Thanks! -O.R.^Comms 13:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad bad German Panzer Aces...

I won't be editing this page [Panzer Ace] in the near future. If my latest posting offends someone- Oh well- truth hurts! Nothing I've said is offensive to anyone personally- I called out Nick-d and his false accusation, I called the little clique "the Triumvirate" but did not name names and I called out Myth of the Eastern Front for the BS it is. My section does concentrate on the article- it expains that it is based on an editorial POV. I just hope I haven't made it difficult for you. Makumbe (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it'll be fine. I totally sympathize, just trying to help. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I do notice that basically nothing has changed in this article since the name change- there is definitely a wall around it. I think maybe Wikipedia should have a classification for articles which are basically opinion- "Panzer Ace" would be one of those. That whole section called "Analysis" is just plain BS- just 'çause a group of random individuals come up with a theory does NOT mean that it is fact or that it should be in a neutral Wikipedia article! I know I'm preaching to the choir- Cheers-Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes things happen slowly here. You can't get too worked up about it or you'll burn out, trust me. I'd recommend constructing a draft proposal on a rewrite when you have the time and inclination. It may help oreient the issues and will provide something concrete to reference. I have a couple of new articles and rewrites to get out the door and get reviewed for GA status but let me know if I can do anything. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mellenthin

I got a ping from Assayer about the article you're preparing. Of course I would be willing to help, if needed. --Prüm (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prüm: Thank you so much. At the time I was working on Helmuth Groscurth, which is now live. I have greatly expanded the content at the German Wikipedia article but there are still some German language references used in the article. My German is mostly self-taught and very elementary so any oversight you'd be willing to provide on those sources to help with my interpretation would be very much appreciated. Mostly I want to make sure they're not being misrepresented in error. I have currently submitted the article for GA status, if you're at all inclined to participate in that process. Depending on how much time you're willing to invest I think my translation and expansion of Sicherheitspolizei (Weimar Republic) is in the most need of review by a native German speaker. The Mellenthin rewrite has a long road to travel before it's ready and I'm waiting on some feedback from his family on pictures and sources before I make significant expansions. Thank you again. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

One "error" (if you want to call it that) which I spotted is the mentioning of the old Prussian (Royal) Military Academy. It would be more correct to name it simply "Kriegsakademie", being no longer Imperial or Royal (it resided in the same building though). It should also not be confused with the de:Wehrmachtakademie, which was an advanced college for members of all services, while the Kriegsakademie was only for the army. I will keep you posted of any further findings. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

One more thing that I found odd was what you wrote about Mellenthin being left "homeless for several years" after his release from captivity. To be sure, he lost his family home in Pomerania and there was certainly scarce accomodation in Western Germany, but he would hardly have had to live on the streets? Regards, --Prüm (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC closure

Is anyone going to closing the Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele#RfC on measurement issues soon... it has been nearly 3 weeks since you asked for final thoughts; it would appear that the discussion has drawn to a halt. Time for a result? — Marcus^(talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Yes, I'll request a closure today. Thanks for the reminder. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Apologies for the delay, I waited for the RfC to hit 30 days but the request for close is in. There's something of a backlog but hopefully not too long. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Historians

This is getting into philosophical debate territory, so I'm moving this here. Here's the M-W's definition of a historian:

• a student or writer of history; especially: one who produces a scholarly synthesis

I agree with your criteria in terms of identifying the most reliable sources. I've frequently dealt with various hobbyist / militaria authors described as "historians" on Wiki; pls see sample here: diff. I've even had other MilHist editors tell me that I don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS (meaning any published book; cited from this GAR). Multiple editors argued that Franz Kurowski was RS for military biographies at this RSN discussion, which was the impetus for the Franz Kurowski article. So your take on sources is refreshing.

But if we go with the dictionary definition, I'd say that Watson is a historian. I've read the relevant chapters from Exit Rommel, and they have struck me as a "scholarly synthesis". In any case, I follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP; it does not suggest that RS are only produced by academics that would meet the criteria that you outlined. Hope this answers your questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that being "a student or writer of history" does not qualify someone as an RS, much less as an RS historian, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to approve of. Your aforementioned objection to Kurowski is indicative of that trap. Historians as RS here must meet stricter guidelines than Webster's dictionary. I also don't see which bullet point in SCHOLARSHIP you think Watson falls under. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe

Hi- I have been accused of being you- or you of being me! "They" think you are my sock puppet or vice versa. Anyway- I'm not you so it should all work out.Makumbe (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Makumbe:, good to be acquainted. I'm disappointed that didn't get a head's up from Nick, but not surprised. On the upside, this has made me aware of at least one other editor that shares a lot of the same concerns as me. So, on that note, I very much look forward to working with you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Not Me. I am doing research now for the Panzer Ace article. It may be a month or two before I finish but on Wikipedia we have all the time in the world to get our facts straight. I find that the "in popular culture" paragraphs in many articles have the same wording and are thinly disguised editorials with a non-neutral POV. I wasn't a Panzer expert before but slowly but surely I am learning enough to edit the Panzer Ace article which used to be called "Panzer Ace" in Popular Culture. So cheers!Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's on rush. I actually had to order some obscure, abused books myself. The farther I look into what's going on the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I promised myself I'd stay off Wikipedia but when I saw what I saw while referencing something I fell off the wagon. The POV and content forking you're dealing with at Panzer Aces spreads across hundreds of articles and centers around two or three activist editors working in coordination. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes- the whole thing is a bit weird. My interest in WW2 is Eastern front mostly- I don't use Wikipedia too much for general knowledge but it should be the perfect place to find out- "top scoring German tank commander" or "Waffen SS battles"! Instead each article is infused with this editorial on " uncritical portrayal of the SS" or some such nonsense. Not facts and figures but rather Soviet style historiography. Hilarious really the propagandizing. Yes- it is a little cabal who have been left to their own naughty devices. Were it not for the Sock Puppet imbroglio I might have forgotten them...Makumbe (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it largely escaped my notice until I ran into the flat out absurdity that was the Panzer Battles article. It was then that I realized a lot of the "weird" things that had been bugging me about so many of the WII articles were all traced to the same source. The wreckage goes back over the past year and a half. MILHIST worked to push back some but a lot of them seemed to just give up and go home out of fatigue. Fortunately it seems there are still some editors out there who have a little left in them. I'll be sure to send Nick a Barnstar of Fellowship at some point in the near future. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your treatment of me has been way out of line. I've attempted to be as cordial as possible with you but you've made this very difficult. Your wholesale reverting of my edits is not constructive or in the spirit of BRD. You've even reverted my reference formatting improvements. I made as much an attempt as possible at breaking down and justifying each edit so any objections can be raised to specific edits. I suspect that we're at the point of outside intervention. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not socks!

Just thought I'd let you know we are Not Guilty of being "sock puppets". Case closed. I probably won't be editing Panzer Ace anytime soon but I do think I've pinpointed the problem in all of these articles. It is that book- The Myth of the Eastern Front- which is really an anti-gaming anti-popular culture polemic by 2 clowns. It's one of the few books I've seen on Amazon with as many 1 stars as 5 stars- 34% of readers found it stupid. I plan on reading it and others used by this little clique. When I am ready I am going to start again. Panzer Ace at least is an editorial- but they did give me my list (of aces) so I'm in no big hurry. One thing I would posit- do they really think they'd see an article like Panzer Ace or The Rommel Myth in The Encyclopedia Britannica? I think not- all opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Nebe's rank

He was never a Obergruppenführer; it is cited in the article, as well. But look at the rank collar tabs at the article Gruppenführer and you will have the "photographic" evidence. Post April 1942 SS rank collar tabs. Also, the Wikimedia copy of Nebe's photo that is used states it is a portrait of Arthur Nebe in uniform of SS-Gruppenführer (Porträt Arthur Nebe in Uniform als SS-Gruppenführer mit Orden). Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: It's a pre-changeover Obergruppenfuhrer insignia. I've added a citation for both his rank and his place in the RSHA. I'm not sure what else you want. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No its not pre-change over. I also used the (copy of the) Official SS rank book published in Germany for the article RS cite. Look at it the rank collar tabs, again. Kierzek (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've looked again and you're probably right about the insignia as his lacks the extended branch. Still, without an RS it's interpretive. I'm fine with the caption as it is, how about you?. Still, we run into the problem of him being ID's as both an Obergruppenfuhrer and a Gruppenfuhrer in various sources. Do you have an idea on where to start with a source that is definitive? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I saw your conservation. Arthur Nebe is listed as an SS-Gruppenfuhrer in the central listing of SS officers on file with Record Group 242 of the United States National Archives. These were the formal documents complied from captured German documents in 1945 which were then used for post war investigations into the SS. RG 242 also includes the original service records of the SS itself. This is the most definitive source there is on who held what SS rank and is the primary source to which all others extend. So, to answer the question, he was a Gruppenfuhrer and not an Obergruppenfuhrer. -O.R.^Comms 00:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome, thank you! Do you have a link we could reference? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the primary index of RG 242 [2]. -O.R.^Comms 00:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the corresponding microfilm or do you know where it can be found online? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Its not online, they are stored on physical microfilm at the National Archives at College Park. But, yes, I have seen them. even have a copy of Nebe's record somewhere. He was indeed a G-Fhr. -O.R.^Comms 03:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, with your permission, may I copy this discussion to the talk page of the Nebe article? -O.R.^Comms 03:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll trust your memory, although if you run across it please let me know. And, of course, anything topical on my talk page can always be transcribed to the relevant article talkspace. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you can copy it over to the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Its been done. I would suggest removing or otherwise archiving this thread here to avoid any duplicate discussions if anyone else were to see the thread in two places. Thanks! -O.R.^Comms 13:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad bad German Panzer Aces...

I won't be editing this page [Panzer Ace] in the near future. If my latest posting offends someone- Oh well- truth hurts! Nothing I've said is offensive to anyone personally- I called out Nick-d and his false accusation, I called the little clique "the Triumvirate" but did not name names and I called out Myth of the Eastern Front for the BS it is. My section does concentrate on the article- it expains that it is based on an editorial POV. I just hope I haven't made it difficult for you. Makumbe (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it'll be fine. I totally sympathize, just trying to help. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I do notice that basically nothing has changed in this article since the name change- there is definitely a wall around it. I think maybe Wikipedia should have a classification for articles which are basically opinion- "Panzer Ace" would be one of those. That whole section called "Analysis" is just plain BS- just 'çause a group of random individuals come up with a theory does NOT mean that it is fact or that it should be in a neutral Wikipedia article! I know I'm preaching to the choir- Cheers-Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes things happen slowly here. You can't get too worked up about it or you'll burn out, trust me. I'd recommend constructing a draft proposal on a rewrite when you have the time and inclination. It may help oreient the issues and will provide something concrete to reference. I have a couple of new articles and rewrites to get out the door and get reviewed for GA status but let me know if I can do anything. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for violating terms of "clean start"

I see that this account is billed as a "clean start" for you. You are clearly failing to uphold the conditions set forth in WP:CLEANSTART, which governs such accounts. In general terms, you have used this account to dive back immediately into controversial topics—specifically, revisionist historiography around the Nazi military. You have also targeted a specific user, K.e.coffman, pretty much from the moment you started up this account, which strongly suggests the continuation of an old interpersonal dispute under the cover of a brand-new account. I see that at least one other admin, Nick-D, has raised the same concern. Relevant aspects of WP:CLEANSTART include:

• "It is best that you completely avoid articles or topics that you previously edited, especially if you were involved in a dispute with another editor... returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. For this reason, it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." It seems quite evident that you were focused on Nazi military history under your previous account, and have immediately returned to this topic area, and to associated interpersonal disputes, in violation of the policy governing clean-start accounts.
• "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account." (Emphasis mine). You are in violation of this aspect of WP:CLEANSTART. The topic of revisionist WWII history is clearly a contentious one, and your use of an alternate account to edit there while avoiding scrutiny of your previous actions is inappropriate—regardless of your activities with your previous account.
• Your actions with this account seem to target a specific editor, K.e.coffman, in a way that is clearly inappropriate. In your first article-space edit with this account, you added a slew of tags to an article developed by K.e.coffman. In your second talkpage edit, you attacked K.e.coffman by name. You then tag-bombed a GA developed by K.e.coffman ([3]), and edit-warred to maintain the tag-bomb ([4], [5]).

I've blocked this account indefinitely, as your use of it violates the terms of WP:CLEANSTART. You can, of course, appeal the block via the usual means, but in doing so you would need to explain how the topics you've edited are not in any way controversial, which is basically like arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Alternately, you can do one of two things to bring yourself into compliance with site policy:

1. Discontinue your use of this account for controversial topics and interpersonal disputes, and resume using your old account, which is presumably not subject to any relevant restrictions; or
2. Contact the Arbitration Committee with details of your previous account and request that they determine whether you should be granted an exemption to the requirements of WP:CLEANSTART.

Of course, the rationale for this block rests in part (but not entirely) on the assumption that your previous account focused on WWII military historiography. That assumption seems entirely reasonable and credible given your activities with this account. However, if it's mistaken, and if revisionist WWII historiography is truly a brand-new interest of yours and your idea of a "non-controversial" clean-start topic, then you should clarify that in communication with ArbCom by identifying your old account to them. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell: Is it your interpretation of CLEANSTASRT that there is a blanket ban on such accounts participating in any topic that is, or becomes, contentious? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not my interpretation; it's what the policy says, in black and white ("Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start."). Now let me ask you a question: did you edit in this topic area (WWII military history) with your previous account? MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell:The section, taken in full, indicates to me the context is returning to contentious areas. To continue the quoted section, in full: Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account. Changing accounts, and then resuming to edit in a contentious area, carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize you and connect your old and new accounts. You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans. If you are unsure in a particular situation, you can ask a member of the Arbitration committee or the functionaries team for advice. The guiding principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas under heightened scrutiny. It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct. This clearly indicates to me that there is no blanket ban on any topic which is, or becomes, contentious. Any such ban would be untenable as it would immediately force any fresh start to concede a dispute or recuse themselves from nearly every possible topic.

To answer your question, no, I was not active on WWII military history articles previously. Although it's long been an area of interest to me, the topic was well covered and tended to in the past by the team at MILHIST. I simply didn't have a lot to contribute with all the other claims to my time. Any edits I made in that area were likely in passing. I went back to early 2014 and didn't see anything. My previous work was mostly in contemporary areas. Has any of this changed your position at all? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the policy is pretty clear, and that by immediately jumping into a controversial area and by appearing to target a specific user and his/her contributions, you've violated both its letter and its spirit. Even if I take your interpretation at face value, you would still be prohibited from "resuming" editing in controversial areas. If you want me to believe that you've never edited a controversial area before, but that you immediately started doing so with laser-like focus the minute you created this alternate account, then I'm afraid I don't find that particularly credible. (Nor do I find it consistent with the notion of a "clean start"). That said, if what you say is true and you have not previously edited in that topic area, then the most appropriate course is for you to contact the Arbitration Committee, inform them of your previous account(s), and allow them to determine whether it's appropriate to unblock this account. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell: I should have been more clear, my interpretation is returning to previously involved areas of contention, which I haven't done. Avoiding contention entirely is almost impossible here. I'm sorry you still feel the best way to deal with this is an indef block. My "laser-like" focus is a broad area of interest. Addressing a widespread issue, also identified by other senior editors in good standing, involving specific editors with due specificity is not what I'd call "targeting" nor a personal attack, and I can't find any edit I've made anywhere which would fall under a PA as defined in the policy, even one that could be reasonably construed as uncivil. Since I've come back I've been entirely civil, collaborative, disengaged from the most contentious areas of work, and created substantial and well reviewed content. I hoped reviewing the entirety of these circumstances would be enough to make you reconsider but if not then I'll continue with an alternative method of resolution. I appreciate your taking the time to substantively engage with me on this. Might I ask, as a final point, who solicited your review of my account? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No one solicited my review of your account. To be clear, I think you either don't understand or won't acknowledge the responsibilities that come along with a "clean start". It is incumbent upon the person desiring a clean start to avoid areas of conflict and controversy. From your first edits - in which you tag-bombed a Good Article, edit-warred to maintain the tags, and criticized another contributor in personal terms - you have done the opposite, and actually sought out controversy and contention to the near-exclusion of all else. You should be using your main account if this is how you want to edit; to do otherwise is to evade appropriate scrutiny. It's deceptive, and unfair to the people with whom you interact. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell:Obviously I disagree with your characterization of my time here, but that's just that, I guess. You do seem to have taken a keen interest in me though. We've never crossed paths and we don't seem to edit in the same areas, I'm curious how it is you came to want to deep dive into my edit history, or even how you ran across me in the first place. You're sure nobody asked you to take a gander at this account? It may be entirely coincidence, but I can't help but notice that I was in a disagreement with another admin who has heaped praise on you for your ability to form "air tight" blocks and a member of the ArbCom, who apparently has watched this exchange, the day before you came out of left field and indef blocked me. You truly just stumbled on me and decided to go digging? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LargelyRecyclable/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An indef block for abuse of a fresh/clean start account. The substance of the reasing can be found above. As I understand it the block hinges on two points.

1.) That I have re-engaged in a subject area and dispute I previously took part in.

2.) That I have edited in contentious areas of Wikipedia.

On the first point, I have not worked in any substantive way in WWII history in the more than 10 years I have been an editor here. I have had no prior contact with any of the editors I have been characterized as being in dispute with. The only exception, as best as I can recall, is Nick-D who I briefly encountered on Rommel related articles and was accused by of being a sock puppet. Nick and I have worked together in the past on contemporary military articles in his capacity as a former MILHIST coordinator, but only in passing, and never in an adversarial manner. In short, absolutely no evidence was provided for the first point and none will surface, as it's an untrue accusation, making the citing of it unreasonable and speculative.

On the second point, I have participated in areas which could be considered contentious, but not overtly so as none of the articles are the subject of editing restrictions due to ongoing content disputes nor subject to special sanctions. In other words, areas which are subject to the usual disagreements on content and form but nothing outside the realm of the mundane. The interpretation of FRESHSTART, as applied to me here, is overly onerous and effectively renders a FRESHSTART account totally unusable. This is in pretty clear violation of at the very least the spirit of the legitimate usage of such accounts, and at most runs counter to the wording of the policy when taken in whole. Basically, the second point is a misapplication of policy.

My time since initiating this account has been productive and civil, as explained above, and this block seems not only off point when it comes to the cited policy, but as being punitive in nature.

Decline reason:

I concur with MastCell's analysis in that your approach to contentious topics and to personal interaction raises significant doubt about your adherence to WP:Clean start rules. I think the way to resolve this is for you to contact ArbCom, identify your previous account, and ask them to judge. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, if you do it the ArbCom way and they give you the all clear, it should prevent any similar issues in the future - and that would definitely be to your advantage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's a good idea. Let us know your previous account. LargelyRecyclable, I've been watching your talk page since I removed what I still think is a personal attach by someone using a one-off IP to make it. Don't feel too flattered, I must have over a thousand editors on my watchlist now, probably more. Your comment about Cleanstart and your attacks on K.e.coffman are the reasons you're on it. This was before you were blocked. And from my experience people sometimes watch each others' contributions, and I know that I end up at articles or talk pages sometimes just from doing that. No conspiracy theories required. And if you've seen mine you'll know I've been tangentially involved with MilHist in the past. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No conspiracy theories, just trying to figure out the order of events. Still, I'm not stupid; random admins don't fall out of the sky and indef block an account they've never crossed paths with, for a reason they've never blocked anyone for before, without direction or a "head's up". I keep seeing "personal attack" being thrown around but, for the life of me, I can't figure out anything I've said, anywhere, that could fit the pretty clear cut criteria we have for that here. Maybe you can help me out. I emailed ArbCom almost a week ago but haven't heard anything back. Is that a normal turn around time for a response? It's possible I did something wrong, I got an "awaiting moderator review" auto-reply email. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned it on our list. I don't know what happened but it doesn't seem to have arrived. I suggest you send it again. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mainly for the sake of others reading this page, as you probably know by now, your email was found. We get a large amount of spam which needs to be sorted through to find the legitimate ones. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix, I appreciate it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• ArbCom note: LargelyRecyclable has disclosed his previous accounts to the Arbitration Committee. We've reviewed these accounts and have determined that the LargelyRecyclable account is a legitimate clean start account. Whether or not the community wishes for the LargelyRecyclable account to be unblock is a decision for the community rather than the Committee. Please ping me if there are any questions. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a matter for the individual administrator who blocked wholly on grounds that the arbcom have now alleviated. This isn't a community block, so the community's consensus is not required for is lifting. Cheers, 11:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @MastCell: After this response from ArbCom, would you be OK with an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I know there's NODEADLINE etc  ;) but Mastcell hasn't edited since 1st December, and, well- it has been a three-week block...Just imho, of course. SerialNumber54129 12:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had noted that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and unblock. I asked LargelyRecyclable to either use his primary account to edit controversial topics, or to contact ArbCom and confirm his compliance with WP:CLEANSTART. He followed through on option #2, and ArbCom has definitively chosen to identify this as a legitimate clean-start account, which addresses the central concern behind the block. LargelyRecyclable's conduct—in particular, his focus on the contributions of one specific editor and his tag-bombing/edit-warring—has been below the behavioral expectations for editors here. But realistically, absent the clean-start concern, those actions don't meet the threshold for a block, so I'm unblocking. (The community can, of course, further review LargelyRecyclable's conduct, but I don't think it's fair to leave him blocked during that time, since he explicitly complied with one of the criteria I listed for unblocking). I think it's fair to warn you (LR) that the edit-warring and tag-bombing was inappropriate and should not be repeated. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Mellenthin

I got a ping from Assayer about the article you're preparing. Of course I would be willing to help, if needed. --Prüm (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prüm: Thank you so much. At the time I was working on Helmuth Groscurth, which is now live. I have greatly expanded the content at the German Wikipedia article but there are still some German language references used in the article. My German is mostly self-taught and very elementary so any oversight you'd be willing to provide on those sources to help with my interpretation would be very much appreciated. Mostly I want to make sure they're not being misrepresented in error. I have currently submitted the article for GA status, if you're at all inclined to participate in that process. Depending on how much time you're willing to invest I think my translation and expansion of Sicherheitspolizei (Weimar Republic) is in the most need of review by a native German speaker. The Mellenthin rewrite has a long road to travel before it's ready and I'm waiting on some feedback from his family on pictures and sources before I make significant expansions. Thank you again. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

One "error" (if you want to call it that) which I spotted is the mentioning of the old Prussian (Royal) Military Academy. It would be more correct to name it simply "Kriegsakademie", being no longer Imperial or Royal (it resided in the same building though). It should also not be confused with the de:Wehrmachtakademie, which was an advanced college for members of all services, while the Kriegsakademie was only for the army. I will keep you posted of any further findings. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

One more thing that I found odd was what you wrote about Mellenthin being left "homeless for several years" after his release from captivity. To be sure, he lost his family home in Pomerania and there was certainly scarce accomodation in Western Germany, but he would hardly have had to live on the streets? Regards, --Prüm (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC closure

Is anyone going to closing the Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele#RfC on measurement issues soon... it has been nearly 3 weeks since you asked for final thoughts; it would appear that the discussion has drawn to a halt. Time for a result? — Marcus^(talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Yes, I'll request a closure today. Thanks for the reminder. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Apologies for the delay, I waited for the RfC to hit 30 days but the request for close is in. There's something of a backlog but hopefully not too long. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Helmuth Groscurth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Helmuth Groscurth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Last ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Panzer ace

Hi - I am just making changes to the Panzer ace page, trying to get some sense of WP: Bal back to it. It is a problematical page, which I think seems to be suffering from people interfering with it based on their political beliefs. Anywasy, I noticed you had been working on it recently, so just wanted to give you a heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: I'm aware, but thanks for the head's up. There are a host of issues with the page, yes, most recently the push to totally change the scope and memory hole the previous consensus. What started as an article outlining Panzer aces is now being claimed as an article about the critical examination of the term by some sources. It's a constant moving of the goal posts designed to advocate a particular view point, as you've also recognized. I've commented on the recent moves already and will largely stay clear until others weigh in. If others are not willing to defend their work or the original conception of the article I'm not going to go it alone. Previously involved editors have to make a showing if the tag teaming is going to be stopped. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to stop up here to support you - I'm over people pushing one point of view here. I was actually in holidays in Japan so have been off wikipedia for a coupel of weeks, otherwise would have stepped in. I know its not great going up against a concerted effort, so I'll be there to back you. As far as I am concerned, the present effort to remove one viewpoint and push another is completely against WP:BAL, so I have in fact reinserted the opposing viewpoints. If people continue to delete the opposing viewpoint, I will tag the article for Bias/Balance issues. Anyways, I wanted to thank you for your effort in trying to bring a bit of balance to the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

George Ciccariello-Maher

Sorry, I rarely edit political bios. I just wanted to draw attention to the article via BLPN because it seemed it had been edited by those who oppose "cultural Marxism", with literal mentions of Karl Marx on the page :-) However, I'd be happy to be pinged about it if problems arise. Meanwhile, I requested semi-protection for the article; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace article mediation

Hi LargelyRecyclable, thanks for all your input with the article so far. As we are going nowhere, I have put in a request for an outside mediator to look at it. If you would like to have your say in the mediation, go to the bottom and select agree to the mediation (I don't know if the system notified you automatically of this, so letting people know). The request for mediation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Panzer_Ace#Issues_to_be_mediated. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Panzer Ace". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 January 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Panzer Ace, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your GA nomination of Helmuth Groscurth

The article Helmuth Groscurth you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Helmuth Groscurth for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)