Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kauffner

 __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  a difficult thing to determine. On the one hand, some of the editors here are correct about how most of the current content of the userpage in question can be interpreted: an attack on a specific editor with whom the owner of this page is apparently seriously annoyed. On the other hand, some of the editors here point out that it's not immediately clear who the object of annoyance is, and I find myself agreeing with this to some degree. With that said, I am closing this as somewhat of a compromise between the two sides: I am deleting the page and restoring all but the attack portions of the page. This will allow the editor in question to continue having a userpage, but without the parts which violate WP:NPA. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kauffner


Attack page. It may not attack a user directly by name, but there's clearly direct attacks in here, via diffs. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that if a user posts personal attacks on me on their talk page, I can nominate the page for deletion? Boy, I am going take advantage of this rule. If you had to put up with the level of harassment that I do, you would not wonder why I put up a page like this. Every few days, this guy has another scheme to make trouble me. His output is astonishing, and he has enough energy to harass me and others as well. Kauffner (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the offending attack paragraph, which was an attack paragraph the way it referred to another user. I now don't see any reason to delete the rest of the page. Deleting the entire page is overkill for a single paragraph. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then bring them to AN/I or RFC/U, not making personal attacks on them. Also, nobody said anything about talk pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Frivolous request; dismiss William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose. Nothing wrong with it in its current state, an editor is free to express their WP-related opinions on their user page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - calling a frivolous request is incredibly unfair: the page, as I nominated it, was purely an attack page. Talk pages can't be deleted (although personal attacks can be), but this was a user page. In fact, it is STILL an attack page, quite clearly, now - just it doesn't name anyone (although it does link to a user's talkpage), so as it is in userspace it is probably OK now. If someone wants to close this now it's been mostly sorted, then feel free to. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Was this discussed with Kauffner before you sent this to MfD? I don't see anything on his talk but the MfD warning. T  C  N7 JM  20:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't, I should've done that, in retrospect. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this attack page still here?: It's still an attack page, although the current version doesn't directly name the person it's attacking. It's still easy enough for a reader to follow links and find out (if the reader were not already familiar with who's who in the diacritics wars), and it's still an attack. When did it become appropriate to depersonalise another editor and call them "a thing", "it", a "snake" &c over and over again? Is Kauffner's userpage exempt from our no personal attacks policy? bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Canterbury Tail deleted the portion that actually linked the "thing" to a specific user (the key to the code, so to speak), but that doesn't make the comments any less in violation of NPA. I know that deleting a userpage isn't something to be taken lightly, but... there's not much redeeming value, really; almost the entire page is subtle and not-so-subtle references to past conflicts, in a rather disparaging tone. If Kauffner wants to remove everything on the page that references the editor dislikes, then that'd be okay, but otherwise I see no reason to allow  to maintain a POLEMIC. —  PublicAmpers &#38;  (main account • talk • block) 23:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Explicitly naming or linking the user or not, the attacks are clear and this sort of page, while perhaps not exactly wp:polemic (I mean, technically it is related to editing the encyclopedia) is indeed offensive and not conducive to a civil editing environment. -— Isarra ༆ 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a page about my experience on Wikipedia, and what it is like to have a Wiki-stalker. Is it OK for me to write about that? There are two or three items I put in because I thought they were funny. If you read it without a sense of humor, you can interpret them as personal attacks. I have been subject to personal attacks many times. I never thought it as a reason to delete a page. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a line between something being humorous, and something being offensive - this is well over that line. Referring to someone as "the thing" is not humorous, it's offensive. There is no evidence whatsoever that the accused is a "Wiki-stalker", and the majority of references to a person is for this user. The ANI thread you link to paints both of you in a bad light, the removed diff you used as an attack had nothing to do with you whatsoever, and the diff about the "alignment" thing paints you in the wrong. As to linking directly to the accused user's talk page and using it against them in your attacks... that's downright wrong anyway. If you feel you're being attacked, then report it - don't go to these childish depths. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oic. I didn't give enough diffs to prove my case. I'll to remember that one. After reading the post above, I am beginning to feel a tear in my eye for poor, innocently accused IIO. Who says talk pages have to be aligned with article pages anyway? Give the man some AGE! If the basic issue is that you don't believe that IIO is actually Wiki-stalking me, then we have a major difference of opinion. The claim that this is an attack page is based on your view of his behavior, which you know very little about. After nine months of putting up with him, I consider myself to be an IIO-ologist. I can't show you a "smoking gun" diff. The problem is that he has been following me around bashing me relentlessly, misusing one forum after another. That's something that would quite a large number of diffs to demonstrate. Kauffner (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether they are stalking you or not, that's not relevant to this deletion discussion. I was analysing what I saw of the diffs there from a neutral perspective. Quite frankly, this is one of two things: if they're not indulging in the behaviours you allege, then this is a blatant attack page and needs deleting ASAP. If they are engaging in these behaviours, then you've sunk below their level anyway, and it still needs to go. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This post is just personal attacks on me. Can we delete this page too? Kauffner (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, can we keep the discussion relevant to the MfD here? We don't want this to turn into a fight. T  C  N7 JM  14:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't really see this page staying on Wikipedia. Unless the subject of the attacks specifically says he wants it to stay here, it creates a hostile environment.  Even banned editors are given more respect than this, after all.  — Soap — 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I must add that I do not seek to rise above the level of IIO or any other editor. Nor do I seek a position as admin, rollbacker, etc. I do use my user page to promote myself or boast of my accomplishments, DYKs, good articles, or edit count. My modest objective is simply to evade the constant harassment that I face and be treated like an ordinary editor. I wrote this page in the hope that it might help me do that. Then maybe I write an article and IIO won't come by and try to delete it. Kauffner (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's relevant to Wikipedia, expressed civilly, and diffs are given; it's not as if it consisted of un-evidenced statements, which are considered personal attacks.  Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not unreasonable content related to the project. Someone is being oversensitive, or is this a proxy fight over a dispute somewhere else? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the subject of this attack has thanked me for this nomination, I assure you I brought it here off my own bat, after it was brought up in passing at an ANI thread - I didn't really look at whom the attacks were aimed at, just at the attacks themselves. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should look closer. Without having done so yet, I would say that I would much prefer that all involved seek to address the issue in dispute without even the appearance of personal attack.  I'd like to think that any personal offence was unintended and can be resolved without the blunt response of deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete if Kauffner is unwilling to rewrite the page such that it expresses his frustration without targeting a specific user. I think it's okay to write about one's frustration, but as it is, it's an attack page, even if the editor is not mentioned by name. wctaiwan (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since everything that could reasonably be objected to has already been deleted, I have to wonder what the issue is at this point. The page once had personal criticism of an editor? If that's the standard, I'm thinking that there are a lot of pages that wouldn't pass. Kauffner (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh... no, you haven't removed "everything that could reasonably be objected to". Not even close. The manner of which you address the editor (as "the thing") is objectionable, the fact that you're still dedicating the majority of the userpage to one user (where that user isn't yourself) is objectionable, the fact you're commenting on exactly what this user's interests are, accusing them of having an obsession, calling them a stalker... If you have serious objections to a user, file a RfC/U. Using a user page for the sole purpose of attacking someone, which this is still doing (however directly or indirectly), is wrong, and for the history of attacks (not just the current ones), the entire thing needs to be nuked, and started again, with no mention of your perceived "battle", or at least, not one that is so targeted at one user, and so abusive to them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I ask... would it matter at all if the exact contents were located at the top of this editor's talk page as opposed to his user page? In other words, is it only the user page that's considered more formal/delicate as far as expressing frustration at having a stalker or should that frustration be banned from being written on wikipedia anywhere, even a personal talk page? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters, it's still a violation of WP:NPA. It shouldn't be anywhere on the wiki. T  C  N7 JM  06:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's going to require a heck of a wiki-police job to delete every post on wikipedia with the words "idiot" or "ridiculous" in it. Every time someone writes on an unrelated personal talk page about how another editor bugs them it going to get brought to the attention of the wiki-police to have it stricken from the record. That might be wishful idealism that opens up more cans of worms than we want. We have legitimate verbal attacks on editors every single day here, and vandalism up the wazoo on actual article pages, and it's tough to keep up with all our tireless volunteers. To also have to police all the frustration posts that are simply encapsulated on personal user pages, and certainly personal talk pages, seems a bit much to me. It might be one thing to write "John Doe is a nazi child abuser" on a talk page, but this seems pretty benign in the whole scheme of things. And this one even had diffs included, which are often scarce. That's all I really want to say on this subject. It was just a query about how far we want this to go and how flexible we want to be, especially on personal talk pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the words "idiot" and "ridiculous" are a problem. The problem here is the fact that the userpage targets just one user, and I've seen diffs used that actually had nothing to do with Kauffner anyway (the one that got removed, for example). The presence of diffs does not make this all fine and dandy, and regardless of language used, the whole page is a pretty blatant attack anyway. It may be benign compared to saying "John Doe is a nazi child abuser", but that does NOT make it right, and it doesn't mean it belongs on Wiki. I'd object to it being on the talk page as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a user page that says more to me about the user than the target. I (and most readers) have no idea who the target of the page is, and won't care. I don't see that it harms WP for it to exist. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, this makes no logical sense. It's obvious whom the user is about from any of the diffs present. Anyone who either clicks on them, or hovers over them, will realize whom this is about. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * delete (and striking my previous oppose). Reading it more carefully then yes, it is an attack page. It's not obvious as it refers obliquely to the editor with a non-personal pronoun, so superficially looks like it's talking about issues, when in fact it's repeatedly referring directly to another editor the identity of whom is clear from the links. Whether it's meant to deceive or is just written that way to be more insulting it's far worse than the average insult at the heat of the moment, which is easily ignored.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After eight years on Wiki, 37,000 edits, various DYKs, and good articles, I am still hoping that one day I will be deemed worthy of joining that exclusive club, Wikipedians with user pages. At any rate, IIO has been behaving himself since this discussion opened. So I am hoping the discussion will last for as long as possible. Kauffner (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just in case any passer-by (or closing admin) were at risk of treating Kauffner's comments as factual statements, I'd like to point out that userpages like are fine; Kauffner has long had one of those. The problem is the constant sniping at other editors; this is what folk object to:  bobrayner (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2013 (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.