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

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"
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:
 * It's "vandalism" to remove sources not used for citations, especially if they are WP:SELFPUBLISH and/or come from non WP:RS right-wing neo-Nazi publisher Nation Europa. In Wilhelm Bittrich.
 * "Unfounded claim that Franz Kurowski is not WP:RS. In Otto Kittel.
 * The content, uncited from Mar 2015, was apparently "vandalized", then what's the point of going in and adding citations and sources? In Hugo Primozic.
 * It's "vandalism" to remove mythology from Franz Kurowski in the article about the "panzer ace" and "the hero of all the Nazi fanboys", Michael Wittmann.

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: See also: User_talk:Dapi89
 * Too many to list individually: 26 vandalism labels, in various Luftwaffe fighter pilot articles.
 * Excellent RS works, Florian Berger, of the "Selbstverlag (sefl-published) Florian Berger" imprint and the Rkiwira fame, and Günther Fraschka, with Knights of the Reich (sic), with Gordon Williamson (writer) for good measure: "fixed vandalism". In Herbert Gille.
 * Even more excellent work, by Karl Alman, Panzer: The Dramatic (sic) History of German Armored Forces and their Brave Soldiers: "vandalism". In Hermann Bix.
 * Also Alman: "vandalism" in Jan 2016. Eventually took in Mach, with my edit summary "likely to be a (semi-) fictional account". Both in Hans-Detloff von Cossel.
 * This is a rare instance of someone other than me being called a "vandal"; the addition was hilarious" ."..which if it were true would give him the highest scoring rate of any pilot, of any country, in any war, ever". In Kurt Welter, a GA article.
 * In February 2016, editor restores a speculative statement, which disparages the subject of the article and has been challenged since 2012 ("...caused him to be rejected by many of his comrades during, but particularly after the war"), and calls it "restoring vandalism". The edit took on a second try in March. In Alfred Schwarzmann.
 * Removing foreign translation is "vandalism". Or perhaps adding "... awarded by Nazi Germany..."? Unclear. :-). In Heinrich Hoffmann (pilot).
 * "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.

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), for achieving, in just two days, three (3) vandalism labels; one (1) pushing-the-envelope label; and one (1) POV label, further distinguishing myself:


 * “restore vandalism”. In Erwin Rommel.
 * "Please refrain from deleting the Wehrmachtbericht wording. I consider removal without consensus vandalism.". In my Talk page.
 * “no consensus regarding your POV”. In Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski‎.
 * "He/she is pushing the envelope in my opinion”, in a MILHIST coord' Talk page.
 * “You guys don't know what you are doing here. Sorry I can't agree to this vandalism.” Co-nominated with . In Erich von Manstein‎.

"Deletionism"
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, and not appropriate on en WP"
 * "I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI and request that the community sanction you for it"
 * "You misunderstand or misapply several core en WP policies 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"
 * "Some editors on en WP take a very dim view of deletionism, of which I am afraid your current behaviour smacks."

Special mention: "Panzer aces"

 * 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.


 * "I'm not sure what's wrong with Panzer Ace as a reference which mentions Kling in its 6th para: http://www.panzerace.net/biography/ostfront-1942-43.htm", in Articles for deletion/Heinrich Kling.
 * "Same unencyclopedic POV push as on List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany from K.e.coffman." With follow up from the same editor. In Michael Wittmann and my userpage.
 * "Your rambling about how invicible the Tiger is or some authors opinions how they view tanks versus tanks engagements is irrelevant to the section". In German panzer aces.
 * Click to view -- Not directed at me specifically, bur rather indicative of the audience for the article. From the same editor:
 * "Most people know of the unquestioned greatness of Michael Wittmann and
 * this edit that turned "hero of all Nazi fanboys" into "hero". All in Michael Wittmann.

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
 * 5 September 2016: ""I really think you should drop the stick."
 * 11 September 2016: "Just drop the stick or make your case via individual AfDs. I'm getting a little sick of this constant carping on about KC recipients."
 * 11 September 2016: "I would have thought that you would have got the message by now. This is blatant forum shopping for your campaign to delete KC recipients because the consensus on those AfDs is currently "keep". Bonus points for the forum shopping being especially blatant. Double bonus points for the OP's apparent inability to assess subjects' notability: all of the AfDs in question closed as "delete" or redirect; none closed as "keep" or "no consensus".
 * 30 October 2016: "I have no confidence that the editor concerned will drop the stick regardless of the outcome here, but believe this proposal has no merit. If you have the courage of your convictions and feel this is so important to en WP, then make the case on each individual article using the existing tried and true AfD process."


 * Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1 4 + 1 (bonus) = 5
 * Yay, a dual triple entry: This whole thing is of a piece with an ongoing campaign by coffmann (with a supporting role by Assayer), to remove all sources they don't deem worthy from a large number of articles, using a ridiculously high bar, and never ever refusing to drop the stick regardless of the feedback they get from experienced editors. (...) Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI." Bonus points for ANI mention. And I have a sidekick too!
 * "It appears to me that this is a part of a wider campaign to destroy articles like this: particularly K.e.Coffman who frequently makes large deletions to articles without discussion."


 * MilHist Talk: Otto Kittel & GA / FA articles


 * A double: 6 March 2016: "This individual, K.e.coffman, has been canvassing several Wikipedia noticeboards in what appears to be a campaign to oust work by Franz Kurowski from Wikipedia."
 * A triple -- 19 March 2016: "This has been an exercise in forum-shopping, and I for one am pretty sick of you banging on about this bloke. (...) You have now created what is effectively an attack page on Kurowski and been going around linking it to articles where he is used as a source. I don't care for Kurowski as a source, but this is pretty much a crusade. I've seen that before in the areas where I edit, and it usually says more about the campaigner. Bonus points for creating an "attack page" on Franz Kurowski.
 * Another editor sensibly responds: "Now, who is the judge of that? (...) Still, the question goes unanswered, how said editors want to sort out the good from the bad, without the use of other sources that provide the exact same facts unspoiled."


 * RSN:Franz Kurowski for a GA article


 * "The canvassing for the opinion of other editors belies your ultimate problem: it isn't the opinion of Wikipedia editors that matters it sources. Bolding of "sources" in the original. The said "canvassing" occurred at WP:RSN, which presumably exists for such purposes.

"You're not from around here"
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


 * 11 June 2016: "When we challenge a source for reliability, on en WP we use WP:RS.
 * 13 June 2016 (double entry): "...I also believe the current version is superior, the level of detail (with minor exceptions) is appropriate, and the sourcing appears fine. I'm afraid that the nominator has misunderstood or misapplied a number of core en WP policies as well as taken a strange stance on inclusion of detail in a military biography on en WP."
 * 13 June 2016: "This approach to translations is quite common on en WP, and is a matter for the main editor(s). It has been accepted by consensus of the Milhist A-Class reviewers, so I wouldn't touch it." Bonus points for envoking Local consensus.


 * Various articles
 * "These deletions are not in consensus in the Milhist community". Bonus local consensus points. In Erich-Heinrich Clößner.
 * Double: "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". In Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin.
 * 5 July 2016: "De WP isn't the be all and end all. en WP redlinks are fine." Down with "de WP"! In Werner von Erdmannsdorff.
 * 28 July 2016: "Stop removing completely legitimate biographical information, please familiarsise yourself with how en WP does biographical articles." Bonus points for having to involve WP:3O in this discussion: Talk:Ludwig_Kübler. Response to third opinion request was: "The revert listed above was of unsourced material. Per WP:UNSOURCED "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.""


 * My Talk page
 * 13 June 2016: "That type of behaviour is deplorable, and not appropriate on en WP. I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI and request that the community sanction you for it." Bonus points for ANI mention.
 * 13 June 2016 (triple mention, plus vandalising! plus deltionism!): "You are using a unique concept of what a reliable source is, rather than using what en WP uses. (...) It is clear from the ongoing GAR that you misunderstand or misapply several core en WP policies, including notability and verifiability. I believe these misunderstandings are resulting in you effectively vandalising en WP with your deletionist zeal. Extra bonus points for my "unique concept" of reliable sources, which has always been WP:RS & WP:MILMOS.

"McCarthyism" and more
TOTAL: 100 points
 * User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 16, 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)
 * "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)

"Expounding the views of Smelser et al"
Another round of Bingo! (source: 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". (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: "Estonian Vikings"; "Many Nations, One Motto" ; "Tragedy of the Faithful"; etc.


 * Supplementary round, via Files for discussions on the book cover of The Myth of the Eastern Front by the same Smelser:
 * "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…!)


 * Bonus round: re-arguing the AfD at the Talk:J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing:
 * "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"

 * "boring npov ax grinding, non contributory" (?). In Erich Hartmann.
 * Extended commentary on my problematic behaviour, especially as it relates to a heavily POV and dubious article on Theodor Schere, 2015 version:
 * "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"
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.)
 * "Need help to restore content of military personnel infoboxes that has been deleted in Nazi-hunt. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
 * "This is part of K.e.coffman's ongoing de-Nazification campaign." In Files for discussion; the image was ultimately deleted.
 * Same editor: "I am against K.e.coffman's misguided de-Nazification efforts." In Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).


 * I must be doing something right if I'm being attacked for my anti-Nazi leanings; ANI thread: "Personal attacks for 'antifascist reputation' by user: Stonedtower".

"Book burning"

 * My attempt to remove a book by a full-on Nazi from Further reading was reverted and equated to "book burning" (link in the original): "I fully agree Peacemaker. We should not run the risk of book burning or any other kind of censorship without a solid explanation (backed by other sources and not an editors personal opinion) to the greater audience why the source is to be excluded." In Talk:Helmuth von Pannwitz. Took on the second try, under WP:FURTHER.
 * Yes, I got reprimanded for "book burning" a second time! MilHist Talk page discussion: I think that burning the books is not the way to go. From an editor who created this before and after comparison, including a non-existing battle.
 * After two instances of "book burning", I'm this close to being called Hitler. To channel SNL Trump, "One day, I'm going to write a memoir about this struggle, and call it My Struggle. What would that be in German?".
 * As a side note, the leaders in New Orleans have been called out for "book burning" for removing Confederate monuments from the city:
 * "If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, 'leadership' of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED!" (caps in the original).
 * Interesting conflation of "Nazism", "lynching" and "Confederacy" (aka "loving memory of our family") in one Facebook post by a (white) Mississippi legislator.

"Coffmanising"

 * I have a verb named after myself! "De-coffmanised article". As in: "let me google this" of Wikipedia.

Further reading: "The Battle for Wikipedia"


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