Wikipedia

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

< User:K.e.coffman
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 24 April 2017 (c/e). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The section is dedicated to various ways Wikipedia editors have described my contributions. As an aside, I'm probably most honoured to be called a "Nazi hunter" while "Coffmanising" is also up there. The comments span from November 2015, when I first started editing, to the present time.

"Vandalism"

References

  1. ^ Zaloga, Steven (2015). Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-1437-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Vandal's Cross of the Iron Cross

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] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), 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"

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

  • 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."

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"

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"

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

"McCarthyism" and more

  • 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)
    • "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)
    • "I believe if he had his way every German biography would be (...) written in a tone reminiscent of the very poor military literature of the 50s and 60s" (I'm very curious what that would look like)
    • "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"

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 a good quote nonetheless. 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:IDONTLIKERONALDSMELSER may not be such a bad idea. :-)

"Nazi-hunter"

File:Tuvia Friedman Polish police.jpg
Tuvia Friedman, one of the real Nazi hunters

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"

"Coffmanising"

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:K.e.coffman/My_allegedly_problematic_behaviour&oldid=776917604"