Jump to content

User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
K.e.coffman
Me, trying to defend the WP:NPOV principles while dodging "vandalism", "deletionism" and other accusations.
AllegianceWP:MILHIST
Service / branchHard-line Anti-NaziTM Special Operations Executive
Years of service2015–present
RankNazi Hunter, Junior Grade
Battles / warsWorld War II mythology
AwardsVandal's Cross of Iron Cross with Swords and Diamonds
WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves (nominated)
Other awards and kudos

Note: The page is dedicated to various ways Wikipedia editors have described my contributions, including "Nazi hunter" and "Coffmanising". The comments span from November 2015 to May 2017.

Promoted to Nazi Hunter, Junior Grade in February 2017, I currently serve in the Hard-line Anti-NaziTM Special Operations Executive branch of WP:MILHIST. My contributions include the reduction of the 100% unadulterated Nazi propaganda (aka the Wehrmachtbericht) and clarifying notability of WWII award recipients that resulted in the Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. My service commendations include Vandal's Cross of the Iron Cross and a nomination for the MILHIST WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves.

"Vandalism"

[edit]

I've been frequently accused of "vandalism" by three editors, by my count. The most prolific of them is currently (semi) retired, so most of the entries are from my early 'Wiki career'. In one these cases the editor really went after me with a machine gun: 26 in just about an hour. Some of diffs are presented below:

References

  1. ^ Zaloga, Steven (2015). Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-1437-2.
The Type 67 machine gun used in the December 2015 attack of "vandalism" labels.

All of these labels were in violation of policy, BTW; pls see: WP:VANDNOT. And a pertinent aside: Not vandalism. Recent crop, mostly relating to the Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners:

  • "spurious tag and vandalism"
  • "vandalism"
  • "rv vandalism"
  • [K.e.coffman] will continue his uninformed editing and vandalism of the work that you, me, Misterbee and other good researchers have done so far..." (diff) -- all of the three editors in question are present here.

See also: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries

Vandal's Cross of the Iron Cross
[edit]

I award myself the Vandal's Cross of the Iron Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds (Vandalekreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes in Gold mit Schwertern und Brillanten), for achieving, in just two days, three (3) vandalism labels; one (1) pushing-the-envelope label; and one (1) POV label, further distinguishing myself:

"Deletionism"

[edit]

I'm working towards a Deletionist's Cross of the Iron Cross.

  • In I can almost smell the GA icon...: "I strongly oppose those mass deletions proposed by K.e.coffman. One cannot explain the performance of the Waffen-SS in Russia in merely two paragraphs." From an editor who shortly thereafter was topic banned from World War II subjects. Another editor comments: "As a general comment, the coverage of the Waffen SS is clearly excessive for this top-level article."
  • In Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material at 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking: " I recommend you just restrict yourself to making the language more neutral where necessary", as well as If you take this sort of action on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article -- right, because it's not a completely impossible thing to do.
  • Editor chastises me for "deletionism" while providing no valid arguments as to why the AfDs should not proceed:
    • "That type of behaviour is deplorable,[neutrality is disputed] and not appropriate on en WP"[clarification needed]
    • "I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI and request that the community[who?] sanction you for it"
    • "You misunderstand or misapply several core en WP policies[which?] resulting in you effectively vandalising en WP with your deletionist zeal"
    • "Your tagging is clearly linked to your text and source deletion and nomination behaviour"[dubious – discuss]
    • "Some editors[weasel words] on en WP take a very dim view of deletionism, of which I am afraid your current behaviour smacks."
Special mention: "Panzer aces"
[edit]
  • Not directed at me specially, but at an article that I was heavily involved with: Kurt Knispel. From the Talk page and via edit summaries:
  • 16 July 2016: Reverted good faith edits by 82.9.237.59 (talk): Copyvio http://warthunder.com/en/news/855-Special-Kurt-Knispel-the-Tank-Legend-en/
  • 30 August 2016: In effect, he is notable for being the "tank ace" with the most kills. I'd add this to the lead paragraph, except that the German article lacks a source.
  • 18 October 2016 Most of the information appears to have been deleted. this was most likely erronious (sic) or malicious.
  • 16 November 2016: What happened to all the content ? There used to be a lot of information here about his military career, unconventional attitude to military discipline etc... why has it been deleted?
  • 4 December 2016: The stories about Knispel being a rebel are all over the internet but are almost entirely unsupportable. They credit him with everything short of X-ray vision and Daniel Boone shooting prowess. (...) I have yet to read anything credible which backs these claims up and I'm pleased to see they have not made it into this article.
  • 9 March 2017: Restoring page after severe edit warring and mass deletions without consensus. Almost entire page was deleted.
  • 11 March 2017: Editor restores material with the edit summary: "Restoring article which was almost completely deleted without consensus. EDIT WARRING. MORE THAN 3 EDITS IN 24 HOURS" (caps in the original).
  • 11 March 2017: Apparently not being aware of what edit warring is, the editor then leaves a warning on my Talk page: diff.

NOTE: My "deletionist" activities can be observed via this handy AFD tracker. My AfD nominations only: link. My PROD log is at User:K.e.coffman/PROD log. My CSD log is at User:K.e.coffman/CSD log.

"Not dropping the stick" / "Campaigning" / "Forum shopping"

[edit]

Let's see how many I can accumulate to qualify for the Stick Retention Badge:

Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles 4+1 (bonus) = 5
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1 4 + 1 (bonus) = 5
MilHist Talk: Otto Kittel & GA / FA articles
RSN:Franz Kurowski for a GA article

"You're not from around here"

[edit]

This sections include the general references of being "the other" whose contributions are questioned and are generally not welcome. Ironically, I've been accused of being both "anti-German" and from "de WP", allegedly trying to import the apparently stricter guidelines as to sourcing & NPOV (i.e. this editor been asked since 2013 to Please stop pushing this Nazi publication "Helden der Wehrmacht...".). Here are some highlights:

GAR:Der Panzergraf 4 +1 (bonus) = 5
Various articles
My Talk page

"McCarthyism" and more

[edit]
  • User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 16#contrary editors, playing "My allegedly problematic behaviour" Bingo, with double points for every hit:
    • "I've read with increasing dismay" & "your increasing frustration" (bonus points for building rapport)
    • [K.e.coffman's "complete inability to see/read reason into discussions" (not dropping the stick)
    • "unilateral deletion" (deletionism)
    • "His whole mantra relies on following the letter of the Wiki-law" (wikilawyering)
    • "demanding that we prove our case rather than giving the benefit of the doubt" (double bonus points for my adhering to WP:V and WP:RS)
    • "McCarthy-ist fervour" (McCarthyism!)
    • "remarkable disdain for anything foreign" (anti-Germanism)
    • "remarkable disdain for anything on-line (said online sources include fan pages http://www.luftwaffe.cz/, http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/ases.htm, http://www.ww2.dk/lwoffz.html -- triple bonus points)
I allegedly believe that the Allied soldiers were "holy warriors on a noble crusade".
    • "His myopic view is that (...) the American and British soldiers were holy warriors on a noble crusade beyond reproach" (never said such a thing, bonus points)
    • "as any researcher with half a brain will know" (you're not from around here)
    • "it is obviously a anti-German grudge he holds" (anti-Germanism, times two)
    • " I just wish we can find a way to muzzle him and stop his arbitrary vandalism" (vandalism, plus bonus points for suggesting that the OP and the recipient together look for a way to "muzzle" me)
    • "Its a sad day when (...) the rest of us, acting in good faith, are held to ransom" (bonus points)
    • "highly idiosyncratic bar at a height far higher than WP does" (you're not from around here)
    • "by doing so he is actually damaging the encyclopedia" (vandalism)
    • "His editing behaviour is tendentious" (campaigning)
    • "I have no doubt that if he continues, he will eventually strike a hurdle in that regard" (bonus points for apparent allusions to ANI or other unspecified consequences)

TOTAL: 100 points

"Expounding the views of Smelser et al"

[edit]
See also: The Myth of the Eastern Front

Another round of Bingo! (source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing):

  • "This article (...) seems to be a vehicle for expounding the views of Smelser and his colleague." (A new one! bonus points.)
  • "I'm sorry? You're saying that ...? How exactly does that work? ... I think you're confused about what we're discussing here." (Multiple "you"s while questioning my competence & you are not from around here; also see: Accusations)
  • "Your relationship to Smelser et al begs the question, given your promotion of them throughout WP, including through the creation of this article and the article on Smelser." (WP:COI bingo! 10 points.)
  • "This flagrantly fails WP:ORG". (Bonus points for the ORG failure being especially flagrant.)
  • "Assayer, your tagteam support of K.e.coffman is becoming highly predictable." (WP:TAGTEAM bingo! 10 points)
  • "Your argument just doesn't stack up against GNG, where is the requirement is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" (Bonus points for ostensibly quoting from WP:GNG where such language does not exist.)
  • "FWIW, this article came to my attention so quickly because K.e.coffman immediately started linking the article to the publisher fields in multiple articles on my watchlist". (Wikipedia:Findlink bingo! + campaigning; 10 points.)
  • "That is how we test notability on WP." (You're not from around here.)
  • "Whether referring to editors as a tag team is uncivil or not depends on whether the claim can be substantiated or not." (Bonus points for unsubstantiated insinuations; see: Aspersions.)
  • "In my experience on en WP, it is rare that two editors' views so closely correspond, so it is hard to assume good faith in these circumstances." (You are not from around here + bonus points for highlighting the extremely rare occurrence of views similar to mine, so anyone who agrees with me looks suspect.)
  • "I've seen the same type of behaviour over the years on Yugoslavia-related topics..." (Campaigning)
  • "'Significant coverage in multiple sources' means that more than one source has significant coverage" (Bonus points for ostensibly quoting from WP:GNG again, where (again) such language does not exist. "Significant coverage" and "multiple sources" are mentioned, but not together, as construed by the editor; see: WP:CIR)
  • "It would appear, from writer k.e.coffmann's editing reputation, that the primary reason for this article is to be his platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is, and then use the article as proof to discredit any Wiki-references to the books published by this company - such a sham does not merit taking up valuable time and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its writers. (Campaigning times 3: "platform"; "tactic"; "editing reputation".)
  • "Being mindful of WP:NOTADVERTISING, do they really deserve a Wikipedia article?" (Not sure how to classify this as the suggestion that I created a promotional article is far fetched. 10 points.)
  • "Seriously? So Fedorowicz only selects those German veterans that want to write revisionist and apologist books, and if a veteran's draft isn't revisionist and apologist enough they will not publish it?"
  • Getting into off-topic territory, but I suspect that the answer to this question is "No, they would most likely not publish it". See the poetic/victim-of-history titles at J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing#Select publications: "Estonian Vikings"; "Many Nations, One Motto"[1]; "Tragedy of the Faithful"; etc.

References

  1. ^ I assume that author meant the SS motto, an article on which conveniently exists: Meine Ehre heißt Treue
  • "It is highly questionable whether the file meets WP:NFCC#8 even with its use in The Myth of the Eastern Front" (See: WP:CIR, as book covers in the articles on said books have never been controversial; bonus points for it being highly questionable).
  • "its use is a vehicle for promoting the book on WP, as the uploader uses the book extensively as a source on several articles" (WP:COI bingo! Bonus point for "I don't like what K.e.coffman, aka the uploader, is doing").
  • "Go right ahead and fill your boots" (Bonus points for lack of civility).
  • "Your editing history shows you are obviously quite enamoured of Smelser and Davies". (J'accuse…!)
  • "Your justification does not fit the facts"
  • "Your expansion is no improvement"
  • "The coverage in the source is shallow and incidental"
  • "That isn't WP:SIGCOV by any standard"

Bottom line: Creating an essay WP:IDONTLIKESMELSER&DAVIES may not be such a bad idea.

"Ax-grinding"

[edit]
  • "He have no interest in building the military history encyclopedia, and is here to just deleting information and push for his own agenda..." (Deletionism)
  • "...he is calling his 'friends' (such as ÄDA - DÄP, sometimes Kierzek and others) and start accusing editors, who disagree with him, admirer for the 'neo-nazi'" (Tag-teaming)
  • "Even so if we take him serious, what he call neo-nazi publisher, surely there is stuff that's strictly factual like organizational data or movements, awards etc., is unlikely to be tainted?" (Baby, bathwater)
  • "This must stop." (Vandalising)
link. This editor apparently created an account solely to comment on my editing. Another admiring post from the same editor:
  • "So Nick-D have totally embraced K.e.coffman and started working together to remove as much as possible military history of Nazi Germany from Wikipedia. Introducing several reasons, such as questionable numbers, nazi propaganda, dubious, intricate detail, he is not noticable and so many no time to write." (Tag-teaming + deletionism)
  • "He always is calling his 'friends' (those who have total sympathy for him and his efforts to eredicate information about military history of Nazi Germany), to make sure he wins everytime!" (Yet more tag-teaming)
  • "He is still adding crappy or NPOV prose on his page; making sure editors are marked as nazi apologist." (Nazi-hunting)
link.

"Nazi-hunter"

[edit]

Requires no explanation: I have arrived! (On a side note, aren't Nazi hunters sort of heroes? Good company to be with: Jules Schelvis, Beate Klarsfeld, Simon Wiesenthal, etc.)

"Book burning"

[edit]
Interesting conflation of "Nazism", "lynching" and "Confederacy" (aka "loving memory of our family") in one Facebook post by a (white) Mississippi legislator.

"Coffmanising"

[edit]

Further reading: "The Battle for Wikipedia"

[edit]

The journal article is available by request; please email me via "Email this user" link.

Press mention

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:K.e.coffman/My_allegedly_problematic_behaviour&oldid=1197567811"