Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. Closing early under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

his page is merely a thinly veiled polemic page, used to attack and ridicule those that Coffman has determined to have 'wrongthunk'. I understand humour is subjective, but lording over other people and poking at them, especially with the combative attitude that Coffman has displayed, is not humour and attempting to pass it as such is dishonest at best. (and a further example of wikilawyering on their part at worst). This page does not belong on an encyclopaedia (note apologies if I am doing this incorrectly. Never done one of these before and doing the best I can) SquireJames (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing here I believe is offensive or inaccurate for that mater.★Trekker (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Collecting insults of other people is not allowed but I see nothing wrong with collecting criticism of one's own. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what is going on here. There has been a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour, so this page should be titled Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour (2nd nomination). Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried moving the page to that space but Wikipedia would not let me due to some technical issue (which I don't really undestand).★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also added MfD tags to the page. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please Withdraw this nomination. Keep. Wikipedians are allowed to document their own activities in their own userspace, within reason. This nomination is useful in teaching inexperienced user SquireJames something about the XfD nomination process and perhaps in the future the nomination's failure may give them pause before they rashly accuse another wikipedian of dishonesty or polemic without diffs. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pawnkingthree for noticing the naming anomaly and previous procedure. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not rashly accused, nor do I require your education. I have done my best to bring to the attention of the powers that be something that is genuinely objectionable. Apparently we're supposed to assume good faith here. That clearly isn't the case though, is it? Apparently I am "rashly accusing" others when in fact i've been sitting on whether to attempt to bring this to someone's attention for some time. The evidence you so blatantly ignore is right there on the page. It's just an attack page having a go at people who've dared to cross Coffmans path in their relentless POV push, deletion of anything they decide is "not important" and general shoving their view of the world down everyones throats.
 * But, sure it's rash. The only reason it may "give me pause" is because it's clearly not worth bothering to bring this up for it to be so swiftly dismissed. It's precisely that "within reason" element I am questioning. Is an attack page "within reason". If they have such an issue with "unnecessary detail" on articles, why clutter Wikipedia with an utterly unnecessary page gloating over others? Would a real, paper encyclopaedia have such a page? or this this something more suited to a blog where they can lord over others their victories in their misguided crusade?
 * This whole process is incredibly convoluted and confusing. I thank those that assisted, as I struggled to make sense of what it was I was supposed to do half the time, and got chastised by others for daring to do it wrong, even to the point that they wouldn't assist me in filing this complaint because they did not believe in it. Lovely bias there. I am not asking for their support, I am just asking "how do I even go about writing this complaint at all? it's mindbloggling". SquireJames (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if the "Please withdraw this nomination" part of your comment is directed at me. No. For the reasons stated. SquireJames (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not thrilled that these quotes are linked directly to edits made by editors (it would be better if they were just anonymous quotes) but, as far as I can see, this page was created 5 years ago and I don't know how anyone would stumble upon it. It's not like it is an essay in Wikipedia space. I don't find it humorous but I also think it was a page set up for personal use only and I have a high tolerance for what editors have in their user space as long as it is not harassment, sexist, racist, anti-semitic, and all of the other aspects that fall under personal attacks. I can see why it might have bothered you SquireJames if you found yourself mentioned on it but I'm sure that the page is getting more page views now that you have nominated it for deletion than it has probably received over the rest of its lifetime.
 * Also, I realize you are new at this but you always need to notify the page creator when you nominate a page they created for deletion. Luckily, another editor stepped up and took care of it for you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. Stumble across it I did indeed, whether or not that's a likely thing to happen I couldn't say, only that I did.
 * I am not mentioned on said page. I did think perhaps that would lend more credence to my case, as it's not a "oh someone said something mean about me and I want it removed" situation. I am a total bystander, who thinks that what they've witnessed is deplorable. But if it's not being deleted and that sort of thing is tolerated here, I am saddened but such is life.
 * I gave Coffman exactly the same level of notification and decency as they give the people who they've lampooned. They get what they give. SquireJames (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per BusterD. Not thrilled at the nominator's behavior here.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You may notice in my reply to @Liz, if you respond to me with decency, I will respond to you with decency. @BusterD did not. I was immediately accused of "acting rashly" and there was an immediate inference that this situation would be used to, essentially, beat me over the head for daring to even make this complaint. That is not acceptable. SquireJames (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. In responding to every comment in a combative fashion, you are quickly turning this discussion into a referendum on your conduct. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  00:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh how dare I respond to criticism eh? Better batter me over the head so I daren't question any of you ever again, right? Disgusting. SquireJames (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And just for you, *just* for you Walt, since you decided to be how you chose to be about it, I am continuing to comment so your snarky comment about me "threatening to retire" that you so charmingly linked to a "humourous" (as I am sure Coffman would deem it) article about how you view my behaviour is irrelevant. SquireJames (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (page author) -- the nominator's personal attacks on this page and elsewhere are emblematic of the attitudes I encountered in my editing: "dishonest at best"; "relentless POV push"; "misguided crusade", etc. I'm also apparently a Nazi: "...goosestepping right in the footsteps of the people they claim to fighting." . As to the nominator's rationale: if the comments by others on my editing "attack and ridicule" those who made them -- that's not on me really.


 * Separately, this page has been linked from the 2021 WIRED article: One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia. The subheading of the article reads: Ksenia Coffman’s fellow editors have called her a vandal and a McCarthyist. She just wants them to stop glorifying fascists—and start citing better sources. (This apparently still upsets some editors, such as the OP). Removing this page would not be appropriate since it's now part of the historical record, so to speak, as noted by outside media. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, anyone who has issues with you removing information from articles is "personally attacking you". No, Coffman, they're not. They have an issue with your deletion of information in your misguided crusade. You are becoming the very thing you seek to destroy. The fact you *continue* to go down this path is disturbing. Has it never occurred to you that if so many people have an issue with your attitude, with your desire to term any criticism, any at all, of your editing as a personal attack, to try and boomerang that back at those who oppose you, that maybe just maybe, you are acting inappropriately? SquireJames (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "This apparently still upsets some editors, such as the OP"
 * Incorrect. You do not know my motives. Yet again, everyone who dares to oppose the glorious Coffman must be a Nazi, right? SquireJames (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficiently veiled, reasonable reflective opinions mostly about the editor.  “used to attack and ridicule” requires evidence. Please provide diffs. Where has K.e.coffman used this page to attack or ridicule?  If it is just this page itself, you are being oversensitive while reading someone else’s userspace. If they were posting it elsewhere, that might be different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This I read as a proxy article by Coffman. It is not an example of attack or ridicule. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You may view it as being oversensitive. I view Coffmans removal of details from articles as "not important" and being able to do this utterly unchallenged as going way beyond any "de-nazification" they are claiming. Quite the reverse. There's an ironic twist in "de-nazifying" something by deleting any information you dislike, pushing a point of view and as you can see above, immediately jumping to call any criticism of them a "personal attack". I've made no such personal attacks. I have criticised their behaviour, not their person.
 * Your point of view differs from mine, clearly. It does not mean either of us are wrong. SquireJames (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The criticism that you allude to should be substantiated by mainspace diffs, or examples of combative behaviour on article talk pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If it makes any of you feel any better, assists you in patting yourselves on the back on what a good job you're doing on your "project", this entire debacle (to be more precise, BusterDs behaviour, immediately deciding I need to be smacked down and "taught a lesson" for daring to complain about the sainted Coffman and their crusade, which of course can't be misguided or wrong in any capacity, has cured me of any desire I had to participate in Wikipedia further. You may have noticed I have blanked my userpage (i'd delete my account if I could, but your website denies such opportunity) and I will not be making and submissions to Wikipedia again. If Coffman wants to continue vandalising, destroying history and warping wikipedia to their own world view, let them. It's your funeral not mine. Croatian Wikipedia shows what you will allow this place to become SquireJames (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Croatian Wikipedia is very anti-Nazi propaganda/apologism is what you're saying?★Trekker (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the very wikipedia page here about the Croatian Wikipedia page.
 * "Since 2013, the Croatian Wikipedia has received attention from international media for promoting a fascist worldview as well as bias against Serbs of Croatia and anti-LGBT propaganda by the means of historical denialism" SquireJames (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So clearly the opposite of what Coffman and others have worked hard for years to prevent.★Trekker (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Coffman deletes information, pushes their POV relentlessly, seeks to destroy the credibility of sources they deign "undesirable" then use that lack of credibility to destroy all information from those sources, and any and all criticism of them is "personal".
 * They're acting exactly like those they claim to be "working hard to prevent". Pull your head out of your arse and realise it rather than kissing up to them. They even self-aggrandised above, just HAVING to post the article where they were interviewed about their "selfless crusade". It's sickening SquireJames (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you were retiring... Curbon7 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What business is it of yours? SquireJames (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no evidence of that.★Trekker (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you're wilfully blind to their actions. SquireJames (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm quite greatful for them. They're a competent and dedicated editor with whom I agree 99% of the time. I trust their judgement.★Trekker (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "I agree with them, therefore their behaviour isn't questionable".
 * Therein lays the problem. SquireJames (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes generally people don't tend to think things they agree with are bad.★Trekker (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you're wilfully blind. As long as you agree with what they're doing, their methods don't bother you at all? Let them just mindlessly delete anything they dislike because "it's unnecessary detail" but as long as they brand it as "de-nazification" and not what it is (book burning, in all but physicality) then you go along with it? SquireJames (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You havn't provided a single example of that happening.★Trekker (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht)
 * Coffman decides that relevant information about formation date and composition are "unnecessary details". SquireJames (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to me they removed the date info because it was uncited.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "intricate detail"
 * As they've done to other articles. I believe it was the biography of Rudel that they decided to remove his date of birth and schooling as "unnecessary detail".
 * But it's besides the point. You'll never sanction Coffman at all. That's fine. It was a stretch to think you ever would. The issue is beyond that now. SquireJames (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "evidence" so far is very weak, the one diff you provided doesn't support your claim. Coffman removed the date information because it was uncited. You're making very vague claims without anything substancial to support it. It seems to me that you're convinced something is happening that probably isn't happening.★Trekker (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "It seems to me that you're convinced something is happening that probably isn't happening."
 * Well you can believe that if it helps you, Trekker. SquireJames (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - In light of their comment above (apparently a threat to retire), the nominator has indicated no further interest in continuing to litigate this MfD.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  00:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment to is not ok. You can't complain about "attacks" and speak that way to another editor.★Trekker (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly it makes no different, Trekker. I am not a special person who has vandalised a myriad of articles and been applauded for it by their sycophants. I've dared to go against the grain merely by questioning their behaviour. Look at how Buster responded to me right off the bat. Even Walts comment there is a "ooh lets link to an article that makes fun of how I think the OP is acting". But oh no, that won't get branded an attack will it? because we go around the rules like that, and we're bestest buddy pals with them.
 * Stick your project. You're all a disgrace. SquireJames (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is "your project" exactly?★Trekker (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how you lot refer to Wikipedia isn't it? "The project" ? "We find this user's behaviour/attitude is not compatible with 'the project' " etc. I've seen that written enough on your kangaroo courts.
 * If you spend more than 5 minutes doing something other than team up to batter me over the head for daring to question your messiah, you'll note i've NEVER had a run in with any arbitration, admin, whatever this Beria-esque council of lackeys is. I am not some serial offender, I am not some sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or other terms you lot like to bandy about to discredit those sick of how you treat people.
 * This one single event was literally enough for me to be utterly sickened by your behaviour. It's not that the page wasn't removed. That's fine. Notice my reply to Liz. "But if it's not being deleted and that sort of thing is tolerated here, I am saddened but such is life." . It's that the first thing, the very first thing, Buster did, was to immediately decide I had "acted rashly" and decide I needed to be beaten with this, threatening punishment because I dared to even question the mighty Coffman.
 * That is utterly, utterly morally bankrupt. SquireJames (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You put up a passable facade of civility in the beginning. But your true colors are pretty clear here, anyone who doesn't agree with you that Coffman is as bad as a facist is a bad person not worthy of respect in your eyes.★Trekker (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You put up a passable facade (sic) of civility in the beginning. But your true colors (sic) are pretty clear here, anyone who doesn't agree with you that Coffman is as bad as a facist (sic) is a bad person not worthy of respect in your eyes"
 * Wrong, but thanks for playing. You didn't read any of what I put, did you? Try again. And this time try not making value judgements about me as a person. You don't know me. Don't try and guess what my "true colours" are. SquireJames (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read everything you wrote here. You called people here "utterly morally bankrupt", "council of lackeys", "sycophants", etc.★Trekker (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And they are. Oh he's questioning Coffman? He's a bad person, let's punish him for daring to do it. It happened from the very start. SquireJames (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No one was calling you a bad person, they were critical of your attempt to delete the page which they see nothing wrong with. You started the personal attacks by accusing people who disagree with you as being pseudo-facists.★Trekker (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You started the personal attacks by accusing people who disagree with you as being pseudo-facists. (sic)" - Really? where? I've said that you're sticking up for Coffman merely because you apparently choose to ignore their methods because you like the results. That way lays tyranny, hence my comments about the Croatian Wikipedia. You're once again trying to tell me what I did and didn't do. Also, I didn't start the personal attacks. Repeatedly deflected a few without calling them such, but, I am bigger than to worry about what people call me.
 * "No one was calling you a bad person, they were critical of your attempt to delete the page which they see nothing wrong with." - "Let's use this as an opportunity to teach SquireJames not to make rash accusations". That's a threat to use this as a punishment. Don't talk down to me or try and gaslight me. SquireJames (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What "threat"? What "punishment"?★Trekker (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "This nomination is useful in teaching inexperienced user SquireJames something about the XfD nomination process and perhaps in the future the nomination's failure may give them pause before they rashly accuse another wikipedian of dishonesty or polemic without diffs."
 * Thinly veiled threat of a boomerang.
 * But as I said elsewhere, we're clearly not going to agree. Believe whatever you wish to. SquireJames (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you're overinterpeting.★Trekker (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe whatever you wish to. Have a good evening. SquireJames (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, Liz did not specifically agree with me. I was fine towards them. Also note my conversation with SmokeyJoe. But again you've decide to make an argument based on your own bias, because you personally like Coffman and support their behaviour. As I said, Bias. I also pointed out my issue was with how Buster decided I needed to be taught a lesson for daring to even make this complaint.
 * So your accusation that I was merely putting on a façade of civility is entirely without merit. SquireJames (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing either of them wrote justifies your insults.★Trekker (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You really are struggling aren't you?
 * Liz and SmokeyJoe *did not* write anything insulting, and nor did I insult them. Grief. SquireJames (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're insulting everyone who supports Coffman with the comments I quoted above.★Trekker (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no support for Coffman from them. It's not "you're with me or against me". Or is that how you see the world, Trekker? SquireJames (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe pretty clearly voted keep.★Trekker (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not a "with me or against me" situation, Trekker. SquireJames (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway we are clearly not going to agree here. Think of me whatever you wish. SquireJames (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A page such as this, safely tucked away out of public-facing spaces, is useful. Jacona (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and snow close. Take the page off your watchlist if you dont want to see it, but we give users some pretty wide latitude for what they include in their userspace, and nothing in this page is an attack on anybody else.  nableezy  - 15:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, users have fairly wide latitude over the content of their user pages, and nothing here violates WP:POLEMIC, veiled or not. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing whatsoever wrong with the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.