Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour

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: no consensus. The keep arguments basically boil down to that the page is humorous and adequately marked as such, and that it documents historical patterns while fairly providing explicit diffs. The delete arguments are mostly covered by a thorough read of WP:POLEMIC.

10 to 6 respectively by the numbers (i.e. ~63% favoring keep). The deletion arguments are strong because they align with the aforementioned project content guideline regarding polemics. Conversely, the last keep argument posing the question "you cannot have a record of bad things other people have said about you?" was convincing. That aside, one !voter seemingly alludes to WP:OUTING but does not elaborate. Another cast a seemingly contradictory !vote (perhaps an unclear meme reference).

Should the framing of information about interactions with other editors housed in the userspace influence whether or not it is deemed appropriate? On this occasion, the community seems to endorse that it should. Unfortunately, because that adds more subjectivity, such a notion makes consistency increasingly difficult. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:POLEMIC states that: Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

The diffs, especially at the bottom of the page, are from heated disputes with users who are still active, and this does not really fall under humor (except in the way of ridiculing users who said those things, I guess). Since this page has existed for months and K.e.coffman did not use any of it in the ArbCom case he filed, I believe it should be deleted. I asked him to delete it on his talkpage, but he politely refused.[1]

One ArbCom member cited this subpage as problematic in the proposed decision vote.[2] I have no problem with this page, if it wasn't for the diffs and stating who said those things. I've seen sections like "things said about me" on userpages in the past, but they mostly dealt with IP trolls or didn't mention any names. Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a clever form of WP:POLEMIC, but polemic nonetheless, and therefore against policy. Sorry, K.e.coffman. If it didn't link to diffs where the editors who said what you disagree with are outed, then I could !vote 'keep'. As it is, though... it's a policy vio. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nowhere near POLEMIC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, what!? It's literally what's stated in POLEMIC: "collations of diffs ... related to problems". And @JFG: the people in the diffs include editors K.e.coffman submitted evidence in the ArbCom case and he also requested DS sanctions to the topic area so no, those even aren't dead content disputes. --Pudeo (talk)
Keep as harmless humor with no intent of unearthing dead content disputes or to pursue sanctions against any of the cited editors. The suggestion to remove links to actual diffs would imho make things worse, because it might give the false impression that K.e.coffman is exaggerating or quoting people out of context. Diffs are very important to establish context and good faith. — JFG ^talk 16:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An editor with too much time on their hands if this is being nominated for deletion. K.e.coffman’s statements—or more so the statements of others—are not attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities; they are “attacking” himself. Whether you understand the irony and humor in it is irrelevant, but K.e.coffman is presenting the information like a self-assessment, no an attack list or something similar.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like I said on KECs talkpage (before I self reverted) I personally didn't find it funny however people laugh at different things .... Point is IMHO it's more of a humour page than a POLEMIC page .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marked as "humor" which covers many things indeed. Collect (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is perfectly fine humor, and even a bit self-deprecating. - Mr X 🖋 17:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging editors who are authors off the diffs on the page. Do you consider your words being inserted on K.e.coffman's page as good faith humour? @Dapi89:, @GELongstreet:, @MisterBee1966:, @Chris troutman:, @Peacemaker67:, @Nug:. --Pudeo (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, if these editors are all quoted on the page, then this is not canvassing, given that it's a select group whose membership is not arbitrary and pertinent. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no real benefit to Wikipedia to delete this, it's funny and interesting as a historical recount of one of our editors.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per many of the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG this is hilarious. I mean, ever since "Springtime for Hitler in Germany" WW2 is acceptable for jokes, I suppose, as it was always accessible for alt-righters, nationalists, military worshipers, warmongerers, Nazis, leather fetishists, antechamber antisemitists, ballroom fascists, one-time visitors to Charlottesville, and et cetera. I'm not sure why DeltaQuad thinks this is so bad--I rather think that for someone who's been under this much pressure and has endured significant harassment, and still puts in this much effort in hopes of improving our beautiful project, this is a very harmless outlet. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete this, nephew. –Vami _IV✠ 14:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sort of page does nothing to aid building an encyclopedia and baits editors who have disagreed with the author. Nigel Ish (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Collecting diffs of other editors from your disputes with them on a "humor" page is simply not a good practice. Humor is quite subjective, what some may interpret as harmless, others could easily see as an attempt of mockery which would cause only additional bad blood. Now if all the editors whose diffs are collected here agreed that this page is indeed hilarious and should be kept, then it would be okay, but I doubt it.--Staberinde (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's value in documenting problematic behavior as a way to help recognize and address patterns in the future. Although it quotes editors, it really says more about the effects of phenomena such as walled-garden Wikiprojects than it does about any individual. –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm one of the editors whom Kecoffman decries. This sad excuse for humor is not well-received by me and it does not aid Wikipedia. I don't think ARBCOM is going to ban coffman for their bad behavior, but I don't think he, as an editor, is going to be with Wikipedia for much longer. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't really humor. It is really just complaining about bad editors disguised as humor. In contentious areas, and Coffman is a contentious editor, this sort of phony humor merely makes things worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait. You can't have a record of bad things other people have said about you? This isn't a record of disagreements--I see false accusations, baiting, and borderline harassing commentary. Note that one of them was called "rant" by the writer. And given the Arb case, there may well be some use for it. No, if these editors said these things, they can retract them. Deletion is not cool. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.