Wired story on K.e.coffman

[Lightbreather]

All I can say is, Brava! K.e.coffman.

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia link by Noam Cohen link

[Pudeo]

Thanks for posting, would have missed this. That's a nice story, I guess the part where the military history "gang" awarded K.e.coffman the "newcomer of the year" while she was was trashing them on Reddit's r/ShitWehraboosSay was omitted.

I don't know why there's such a focus on Peacemaker67, like there was in the ArbCom case too. He's hardly a pro-Nazi editor. I guess that, back in 2017, he was pissed off about hundreds of articles being blanked and redirected without any discussion, like many military history editors were. If you're looking for a bad actor in the topic area, then that's OberRanks (T-C-L). Also, K.e.coffman battled with Dapi89 (T-C-L) in the early days, and Dapi could rightfully be criticized for a lot of stuff IMO, but K.e.coffman didn't even mention him (or OberRanks) in the ArbCom case. She was focused on getting the scalp of the MILHIST "leader" and admin Peacemaker67.

Wikipedia is full of similar flying ace articles and other military bios for US, Soviet, Australian and British personnel. German aces with 70 air victories were deleted, but US aces with 5 victories are not. Is someone going to claim that those articles only use high-standard academic sources? There isn't much of a difference. There's only hypocrisy, like that Hawkeye7 creates plenty of Australian military bios full of intricate detail but thinks that more notable Nazi German bios should be binned. As for systemic problems, start with "anyone can edit".

She wasn’t taught to romanticize the war. “The martial qualities of the veterans were never celebrated,” Coffman says. “It wasn’t about the glorious victories, fighters zooming down on enemy ships.” Her grandfather, a soil scientist, served in the Red Army as a combat engineer and survived the assault on Leningrad.

Never heard of this whole Soviet 'Great Patriotic War' stuff? 9th of May parades?

But good for them for removing fancruft from tens of thousands of articles every day and blanking those Knight's Cross bios. Now there's only one enigma to crack. Why, despite being so liberal, was she in so good terms with Icewhiz?

[Midsize Jake]

But good for them for removing fancruft from tens of thousands of articles every day and blanking those Knight's Cross bios. Now there's only one enigma to crack. Why, despite being so liberal, was she in so good terms with Icewhiz?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," no? I never saw that as particularly enigmatic, but I don't get involved in these things on a personal level, so...

As for the article, it's obviously one-sided — presumably in order to avoid any show of sympathy for Nazi apologists, which is completely understandable — and I would certainly agree that it ignores even the possibility that her various WP antagonists were objecting to her methods more than they were objecting to the results. I also suspect that a lot of people, even among her allies, will see it as "a bit of a stretch" that she got into this (and stayed with it for so long) on what really amounts to a whim. But I guess you could probably say the same for me being here on Wikipediocracy, though my circumstances have obviously been rather different.

Anyway, I don't see the article as being especially pro-Wikipedia; you'd have to be fairly dumb (IMO) to read it and think it isn't a problem that such a big website, backed by such a wealthy foundation, has to rely on a single volunteer and a few of her friends to counteract something as obviously problematic as Nazi apologia — assuming that's even what it actually is/was.

Some people might just assume "someone else would surely have come along eventually," but it seems to me that notion requires a great deal of naîvete, at this point. (Not that there's a huge shortage of naîvete out there, I suppose.)

[Lightbreather]

.... As for systemic problems, start with "anyone can edit".

She wasn’t taught to romanticize the war. “The martial qualities of the veterans were never celebrated,” Coffman says. “It wasn’t about the glorious victories, fighters zooming down on enemy ships.” Her grandfather, a soil scientist, served in the Red Army as a combat engineer and survived the assault on Leningrad.

Never heard of this whole Soviet 'Great Patriotic War' stuff? 9th of May parades?

It read to me that was her family's view of the war - not to romanticize it.

I admire that she's a woman who's managed to survive editing in a controversial, male-dominated subject area. Also, considering the way people have been historically allowed to behave on and off WP, I don't see anything to knock about her behavior.

[Volunteer Marek]

(...)
Now there's only one enigma to crack. Why, despite being so liberal, was she in so good terms with Icewhiz?

I have a pretty good idea now.

[LargelyRecyclable]

All narcissists eventually out themselves, even if they spend years pretending to be a dude named "Kevin".

Now that she's finally done so I wonder how long it will take someone to blow up her years of willfully violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. It's possible nobody has the balls.

Also, damn, that photographer is not doing her any favors.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Fuck it. If she wants to put her face to the user name then I have no more reason to refrain.

I wrote this a few years ago before I decided that I just didn't care enough to push it. I haven't made any changes so the links and language are old. All the issues laid out continue and she even has at least one undeclared account from 2009, over six years before she supposedly started editing "on a whim". She used the account to edit the article of her then employer, where she worked in marketing. Of course she continued this with her current employer, starting to edit their corporate article the same month she was hired. She's been using her New Article Reviewer status to deny coverage to her employer's competitors for years. Her experience editing Wikipedia is clearly part of her resume in the marketing industry.

While K.e.coffman is well known for her POV pushing in military history topics relating to Germany, and more recently in firearms and contemporary US politics, she’s largely escaped notice for her single other area of long term and recurring editing: the US corporate tech sector, especially in wireless networking, data and financial services, and IT security. This is somewhat ironic because it’s here that she’s most blatantly in violation of Wikipedia rules, in this particular instance the rules and guidelines which govern paid editing and conflict of interest. I’ve struggled to figure out how to talk about this without doxxing her, so if this seems to be lacking in a sort of “smoking gun” it’s due to my unwillingness to do that.

Coffman is a marketing/PR professional in the US tech industry. In January of 2016 she went to work for a company called NETSCOUT in a supervisory marketing role. Immediately after she and another employee began to edit NETSCOUT’s article, inserting promotional material. The other employee, an IP editor who self-identified herself as a NETSCOUT Marketing Analyst named Clarissa Wright, said that her concurrent edits to the article were at the behest of the company's Chief Marketing Officer, her and Coffman's boss. At the time this was Jim McNiel, who described his role as “Positioning, Messaging, Brand,Web, Events, Advertising, Press and Social Media activities worldwide.” Coffman made no such disclosure.

During the course of this rewriting of the article a single edit account named Conifer Jam inserted a PEACOCK template on the article. Coffman reverted this edit without explanation. Coffman continued to edit the article through February, with the other employee making their last edit in December. The last person to edit the article before Coffman was Usterday, a now banned paid editing sockmaster. I speculate that NETSCOUT decided at the start of the year to go in-house with its Wikipedia PR effort with Coffman.

While all of this on its own is a screaming violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use at the time the edits were made, it gets much worse. Coffman has regularly made edits to the articles of her employers’ competitors, has refused to disclose her paid marketing position, refused to disclose her COI despite specific requests for such disclosure, and has now begun to delete or refuse the creation of articles for her employers’ competitors in her new role as an AfC Reviewer. Making it all the more inexcusable is her familiarity with COI and paid editing rules, which is made obvious by her frequently citing exactly these rules and guidelines as reasons for denying articles or edits on her employer’s competitors.

Most recently Coffman denied the creation of an article for a regional competitor of NETSCOUT, a company called Global Wireless Solutions. In October she nominated for speedy deletion the article creation for another competitor, Kastle Systems. After the article was deleted she quickly denied the rewritten draft in her capacity as an AfC Reviewer. The article’s creator, Kmcadams1, showed up on Coffman’s talk page and accused her of anti-competitive behavior. She rather hilariously accused him of COI and refused this opportunity to disclose her status as a Marketing and PR professional for one of Kastle Systems’ competitors.

Other articles or drafts covering products, services, or corporations in competition with NETSCOUT that she has edited, deleted, refused, or otherwise tampered with include, Solar-PuTTY, BevSpot, Musicinfo, Uptane, Duty of Care Risk Analysis (via Center for Internet Security), Cryfa , Crowdin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... hew_Prince

[Midsize Jake]

I recall you hinting at this in a PM, I believe, a while back... Maybe we should do a blog post about this? In effect, she's carved out a nearly impenetrable niche for herself (i.e., opposition to "Good German" narratives and other forms of Nazi apologia) in order to insulate herself from criticism for, or even just allegations of, paid and/or CoI editing.

Admittedly, I'd say that for the most part we're actually OK with paid editing here, since quite often the paid editors do a better job of actual article improvement than the regular volunteers. Which is to say, a particularly clever or well-constructed approach to protecting one's status while editing for pay isn't necessarily something we'd criticize, and we might even applaud it. But as you've pointed out, there's still the fact that Wikipedia is looking the other way while their Terms of Use are being violated, apparently just to avoid the PR stigma of having imposed sanctions on a Nazi-opposer. (Again, understandable, but also a slippery slope.)

[LargelyRecyclable]

I recall you hinting at this in a PM, I believe, a while back... Maybe we should do a blog post about this? In effect, she's carved out a nearly impenetrable niche for herself (i.e., opposition to "Good German" narratives and other forms of Nazi apologia) in order to insulate herself from criticism for, or even just allegations of, paid and/or CoI editing.

Admittedly, I'd say that for the most part we're actually OK with paid editing here, since quite often the paid editors do a better job of actual article improvement than the regular volunteers. Which is to say, a particularly clever or well-constructed approach to protecting one's status while editing for pay isn't necessarily something we'd criticize, and we might even applaud it. But as you've pointed out, there's still the fact that Wikipedia is looking the other way while their Terms of Use are being violated, apparently just to avoid the PR stigma of having imposed sanctions on a Nazi-opposer. (Again, understandable, but also a slippery slope.)

Yeah, a couple of years ago. I let the whole thing go because I'm simply not willing to put another ounce of work into that place. I don't miss it at all.

I don't know about a blog post but I suppose that'd serve as an FYI for interested editors. In the end, though, nothing will be done about it. After the ridiculous kangaroo court ArbCom case she brought against me not a lot of people are willing to push back against her. They saw what happened to the small handful of people brave enough to stand up and say something about her behavior. After all, people sitting on the ArbCom right now, and in the past, helped her put the whole thing together. She was soliciting "allies" for the case via email and telling them that she had the whole thing lined up with the powers to be. It just so happened that a few of them were disgusted enough with her behavior that it got back to me in the form of warnings.

In the aftermath of that whole debacle, and her subsequent attempt to again weaponize process against people pushing back against her, she has become well understood by a lot of people to be a toxic propagandist who picks fights and targets people who disagreed with her. There were people, especially at MilHist, who were appalled but, in the end, they either quit Wikipedia or put their head down in fear. Who wants people like Drmies and Doug Weller gunning for you all the time?

The sort of experienced editors needed to put something viable together are usually smart enough to know that all they'd be doing is painting a target on their back. She has the categorical support of the ideologically cohesive clique that functionally runs Wikipedia because they've all bought into this bullshit "hero Nazi-hunter" narrative. It's why her ego allowed her to do the Wired piece, I'm sure.

In the end, people will look the other way and she'll be protected. The most that will happen is a fake apology and a slap on the wrist, but in all likelihood it will all just get brushed under the rug, even though I know this thread has already been read by ArbCom members and admins.

[Lightbreather]

I recall you hinting at this in a PM, I believe, a while back... Maybe we should do a blog post about this? ....

Yeah, a couple of years ago. I let the whole thing go because I'm simply not willing to put another ounce of work into that place. I don't miss it at all.

I don't know about a blog post but I suppose that'd serve as an FYI for interested editors. In the end, though, nothing will be done about it. After the ridiculous kangaroo court ArbCom case she brought against me not a lot of people are willing to push back against her. They saw what happened to the small handful of people brave enough to stand up and say something about her behavior. After all, people sitting on the ArbCom right now, and in the past, helped her put the whole thing together. She was soliciting "allies" for the case via email and telling them that she had the whole thing lined up with the powers to be. It just so happened that a few of them were disgusted enough with her behavior that it got back to me in the form of warnings.

....

I was completely unaware of the ArbCom until it was brought up here. My two cents, looking at your first fifty edits - especially this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =801875487 - is that there's no way to know what your own WP past is prior to creating the LargelyRecyclable account, so... Well, I'll say no more than that. I just don't have the energy to get further involved in the direction this discussion has moved.

[LargelyRecyclable]

I was completely unaware of the ArbCom until it was brought up here. My two cents, looking at your first fifty edits - especially this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =801875487 - is that there's no way to know what your own WP past is prior to creating the LargelyRecyclable account, so... Well, I'll say no more than that. I just don't have the energy to get further involved in the direction this discussion has moved.

It's all good. And, I'm sorry, I sort of hijacked your thread. Maybe an admin here wants to move some stuff around, I don't know.

I edited for about fifteen years before I was burned out of my dusty little hovel. I publicly disclosed all my old accounts as the whole lynching wrapped up. Earlier, some pearl clutching drama queens were just beside themselves and a very WP:INVOLVED and butthurt admin who teaches English at an athletics league with a mediocre classroom program dispatched admin-for-hire MastCell to ban me for "sock puppeting" which was both stupid and incorrect. He just couldn't handle exchanges at the Panzer Aces article which demonstrated that I knew the rules just as well as he did and that there was someone left on Wikipedia who was willing to call him out on being boorish and entitled.

There was fevered speculation that "This is only the tip of the iceberg", and that I was likely a devious sock master with accounts lurking around every corner. I submitted all my editing history to ArbCom who gave the green light and his poor, fragile ego never recovered. On my way out the door I figured I'd save everyone the time and just publicly disclose my previous accounts, which were NeoFreak, CarpetBumming, and TomPointTwo, not including some early IP editing in the '02-'03 timeframe. All totally above board, with no overlap, and in compliance with FRESHSTART.

My whole history is available for anyone who wants to look at it. Just don't look too hard, I was a kid early on and some of it's pretty cringe inducing. I spent like two or three years playing whack-a-mole with creepy fetishists who wanted to write articles about how they were pan sexual unicorns with dragon souls who needed to jerk off to reverse child birthing pornography, while citing geocities websites that some 50 year old dude from Ohio wrote, whom they met on ICQ. Or something. It was the Wild West days of Wikipedia.

[owl be it]

All I can say is, Brava! K.e.coffman.

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia link by Noam Cohen link

Is this what Wired is calling an article nowadays? This is almost a direct copypaste of a talk page argument, with the lines prefaced by "She says that" and "He responds", interspersed with little asides of her saying she's really smart. How goofy!

I think the lady deserves her money back for this one (or whatever was paid in order for it to get written).

[owl be it]

All I can say is, Brava! K.e.coffman.

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia link by Noam Cohen link

Is this what Wired is calling an article nowadays? This is almost a direct copypaste of a talk page argument, with the lines prefaced by "She says that" and "He responds", interspersed with little asides of her saying she's really smart. How goofy!

I think the lady deserves her money back for this one (or whatever was paid in order for it to get written).

Owl be it opens the thread. She's used to reading words on a screen -- she talks later about how many times she read forum threads while going to Harvard -- and she reads them with the intent concentration of a trained intellectual. Eventually, she types out a long response, based in cold unassailable logic: "This Wired article is a pile of crap."

The other posters are left spechless. They begin to clap -- tears in their eyes, they are inspired by the words of someone who was smart enough to go to business school.. Soon everyone is clapping. Owl be it smiles knowingly: "This is just like at Harvard, where I was elected CEO of the college because of how smart I was."

[The Garbage Scow]

It sure would be nice to cover World War II topics in general and German military topics in particular without every article needing to be 3/4ths sledgehammering about how evil Naziism was, whether it really fits or not.

It's a bit like Jytdog's crusade against pseudoscience. Pretty much everyone reasonable agrees pseudoscience is dangerous and Naziism is evil, but forcing every article to constantly reiterate those points or be deleted is a disservice to history.

[LargelyRecyclable]

And, so it begins.

Poor guy walked right into the buzz saw.

[ArmasRebane]

It sure would be nice to cover World War II topics in general and German military topics in particular without every article needing to be 3/4ths sledgehammering about how evil Naziism was, whether it really fits or not.

Yeah, some of the quotes in the Wired story sort of brought this to mind for me. Stopping in the middle of an article about a German flying ace to mention "and you know, he fought for Nazi Germany, which killed roughly six million Jews and about the same of other ethnic and persecuted groups during the war, etc." would definitely be correct, but it's also irrelevant digression in the context of that person's bio (whereas hiding or minimizing how active he was in the Nazi apparatus or anti-semitism or personal responsibility for war crimes would be directly relevant and what should be mentioned in the article.)

The entire presentation of Coffman as some enlightened person just above the fray is, of course, nonsense. Any time people talk about how neutral and even-handed they are, they're likely covering a lot of unconscious or conscious biases.

Rather than ideological bias, though, I think the bigger issue they're cropping up against is Wikipedia's various strains of fancruft. It usually gets talked about in the sense of detailed histories of fictional weapons or characters or maybe sports, but every subject, even the most scholarly, has the same issues. For military history people it's exhaustive details of minor actions in minor campaigns, or details on minor soldiers. I think the editors (and, indeed, some of the scholars) love their war games so much they tend to ignore the fact that these were actual people, and that there's still political and social ramifications to the wars that resonate today.

MilHist is a phenomenally successful Wikiproject in many ways, but that success has bred insular thinking, which I think sparked the fight with Coffman.

It's a bit like Jytdog's crusade against pseudoscience. Pretty much everyone reasonable agrees pseudoscience is dangerous and Naziism is evil, but forcing every article to constantly reiterate those points or be deleted is a disservice to history.

The pseudoscience stuff on Wikipedia I think is worse, because there's a lot of articles that are built on what I suspect are pretty cruddy skeptic sources that are basically giving some of these people audiences they wouldn't otherwise have. Coffman is at least trying to delete the stuff she believes is propaganda; the skeptics love to exhaustively detail them, giving them a Wiki page in the process, and I think it's probably a net benefit for them.

More broadly, Wikipedia has no shortage of people who are generally right about stuff but are total jackasses about it.

[The Garbage Scow]

More broadly, Wikipedia has no shortage of people who are generally right about stuff but are total jackasses about it.

Well said.

[Ming]

It's not so much that "people are right but are jackasses about it", but that the nature of open editing and the general tenor of public "discourse" these days turns everything into a crusade.

[Pudeo]

And, so it begins.

Poor guy walked right into the buzz saw.

• 05:19, 10 September 2021 Bradv blocked MPS1992 (T-C-L) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{ArbComBlock}})

Boom. He was told to email the COI concerns to ArbCom, and was apparently blocked in the meantime.

I mean, yeah her employer wasn't mentioned in the Wired article, so that's not allowed on-wiki and is oversightable (not sure if MPS1992 even mentioned it, I didn't see the message). But it's not really outrageous doxxing either when the article is being linked on-wiki and the person has agreed to an interview which connects her Wikipedia user and real name in a large-circulation magazine. Sometimes that happens on WP:COIN if the COI editor's identity is public.

I think it's clear that working in marketing and AFD'ing and reviewing new articles about competitors is a COI problem, based on the evidence you posted above. I suppose it can be argued how close competitors those are. It's a certain bet that ArbCom however won't be revoking the patroller flag or acknowledging this COI.

There's a quite literal relation to "barriers to entry" when it comes to Articles for Creation patrolling.

[LargelyRecyclable]

And, so it begins.

Poor guy walked right into the buzz saw.

• 05:19, 10 September 2021 Bradv blocked MPS1992 (T-C-L) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{ArbComBlock}})

Boom. He was told to email the COI concerns to ArbCom, and was apparently blocked in the meantime.

I mean, yeah her employer wasn't mentioned in the Wired article, so that's not allowed on-wiki and is oversightable (not sure if MPS1992 even mentioned it, I didn't see the message). But it's not really outrageous doxxing either when the article is being linked on-wiki and the person has agreed to an interview which connects her Wikipedia user and real name in a large-circulation magazine. Sometimes that happens on WP:COIN if the COI editor's identity is public.

I think it's clear that working in marketing and AFD'ing and reviewing new articles about competitors is a COI problem, based on the evidence you posted above. I suppose it can be argued how close competitors those are. It's a certain bet that ArbCom however won't be revoking the patroller flag or acknowledging this COI.

There's a quite literal relation to "barriers to entry" when it comes to Articles for Creation patrolling.

Well, they're nothing if not predictable.

I forgot to mention when you previously brought it up that her "award" from MilHist was sarcastic. She was nominated by one of the many well-respected content creators she drove off of Wikipedia a few years ago. That she hangs it on her user page is her way of poking them in the eye.

Anyway, they'll use OUTING to bludgeon to death anyone who dares bring it up in an open forum where the overall community can actually have some oversight. Because, remember, the goal is to minimize transparency and perform as much governance behind closed doors as possible, especially when there are so many bodies already buried.

Of course, invoking OUTING is ridiculous, but most editors will never know it because they use it suppress context. It's part of their self-licking ice cream cone. There's no need to investigate because there' no evidence, there's no evidence because there's no need to investigate. She openly identified herself so she could bask in the glory of her fake public persona. Now you can simply plug her name into a search engine and all the professional information she's made publicly available pops right up. She outed herself.

She'll likely run for something soon.

[Pudeo]

NETSCOUT, which K.e.coffman works for, does enterprise clouds, cybersecurity, communication services etc. for a wide variety of industries:


In July 2021, she declined:
Draft:Cobalt (company) (T-H-L) (cybersecurity)
Draft:Tridge (application) (T-H-L) (market data platform)
Draft:Vidispine (T-H-L) (media asset management)

April-May 2021 declinations:
Draft:Hibob (T-H-L) (HR tech)
Draft:Outsourced CFO (T-H-L) (cloud acounting)
Draft:Kobiton (T-H-L) (device management)
Draft:Ontario Systems (T-H-L) (account receivables management)
Draft:Aera Technology (T-H-L) (cloud enterprise software)

[ArmasRebane]

NETSCOUT, which K.e.coffman works for, does enterprise clouds, cybersecurity, communication services etc. for a wide variety of industries:


In July 2021, she declined:
Draft:Cobalt (company) (T-H-L) (cybersecurity)
Draft:Tridge (application) (T-H-L) (market data platform)
Draft:Vidispine (T-H-L) (media asset management)

April-May 2021 declinations:
Draft:Hibob (T-H-L) (HR tech)
Draft:Outsourced CFO (T-H-L) (cloud acounting)
Draft:Kobiton (T-H-L) (device management)
Draft:Ontario Systems (T-H-L) (account receivables management)
Draft:Aera Technology (T-H-L) (cloud enterprise software)

If you can demonstrate those drafts were unfairly declined, then that seems like something worth sending to the Arbitration Committee. I doubt anyone there was interested in doing something about COI edits years after the fact rather than now.

[LargelyRecyclable]

If you can demonstrate those drafts were unfairly declined, then that seems like something worth sending to the Arbitration Committee. I doubt anyone there was interested in doing something about COI edits years after the fact rather than now.

They already know, it's been renewed a topic of conversation among ArbCom members for a couple of days now.

It's not a question of whether or not they're made aware, it's a question of whether or not they can be compelled to act, which I doubt. The only thing which can compel them to do the right thing and indef her for willful and on-going violations of the Terms of Use is transparency. Transparency will never happen because they've already demonstrated their willingness to use OUTING as an excuse to indef block anyone who brings it up where the community can see it. Then they Oversight memory hole the whole thing and pretend nothing happened. Which, incidentally, is exactly the sort of scenario critics of Oversighting warned of prior to, and immediately after, its implementation.

As I've said elsewhere, Coffman isn't really the problem, she's an inevitable byproduct of the problem.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Oh my god, please run.

There's no possible outcome that isn't pure comedy gold. She either gets shut down or they invite the fox into the henhouse. My guess is that if she runs she'll win, out of a combination of cowardice and a surge of non (or non-active) MilHist members flooding the vote to get as close as they can to all that sweet, sweet "Nazi-hunter" attention.

TomStar81 is a nice guy, but man, way to throw all those longtime contributors and coordinators she's thrashed over the years under the bus because you're scared of some bad press around your baby. He's groveling to a woman who made it her mission to trash MilHist for years.

[Osborne]

And, so it begins.
Poor guy walked right into the buzz saw.

Johnuniq (T-C-L) exhibits the typical aggressive admin stereotype there.

Looking back at its RFA the concerns about such behavior were aplenty:
"draconian punishments and death penalties"

Johnuniq should be the one invited to a session with ArbCom.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Johnuniq should be the one invited to a session with ArbCom.

The Supports are full of members of the ArbCom. In fact, the whole section is a who's who of the problematic little cartel that runs Wikipedia.

[Beeblebrox]

Johnuniq should be the one invited to a session with ArbCom.

The Supports are full of members of the ArbCom. In fact, the whole section is a who's who of the problematic little cartel that runs Wikipedia.

Maybe my math is a bit off, but I see 3 people who are -now- arbs out of nearly 200 support votes. This was smack in the middle of Frammageddon, I suspect the active arbs were a wee bit busy with that at the time.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Johnuniq should be the one invited to a session with ArbCom.

The Supports are full of members of the ArbCom. In fact, the whole section is a who's who of the problematic little cartel that runs Wikipedia.

Maybe my math is a bit off, but I see 3 people who are -now- arbs out of nearly 200 support votes. This was smack in the middle of Frammageddon, I suspect the active arbs were a wee bit busy with that at the time.

Fair enough; I should have specified current and former.

Just scanning on that front I see bradv, Floquenbeam, Premeditated Chaos, Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Drmies, Newyorkbrad, and GoldenRing as a clerk. I imagine I missed a few.

[Poetlister]

Premeditated Chaos

Choosing that name was a stroke of genius. Obviously, loads of people would have voted for them as symbolically appropriate for Arbcom.

[LargelyRecyclable]

lol

Some after the fact magnanimity. Basically the only edit he's made in a week. Fuck all your friends, fuck all those people who've done so much for the project who are now covered in shit. We all see you. What a scumbag.

Meanwhile, the guy who Coffman trashed in her hagiographic puff piece is cruising to the top spot in MILHIST coord elections. He's a bigger man than I am, I would have thrown a shit fit.

[Smiley]

Ksenia interviewed by Jared Holt for his SH!TPOST podcast


Correcting Nazi history on Wikipedia — Ksenia Coffman (1/20/22)

[Bezdomni]

Somehow that podcast seems misnamed... not really the style of sh!tposting off-wiki readers might be used to. Perhaps Sa!nt of the Day or The Hag!ograph might be more accurate advertising, at least for this episode.

Ya hafta look afta ya real estate...

@23:00

[The Garbage Scow]

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.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/one- ... ket-newtab

[utbc]

Compelling read. It seems the author actually understands how Wikipedia works. That said, it's a story, with one hero and one villain, and obviously based completely on the protagonist's accounts. I wonder what Peacemaker made of it. Looks like another instance of a blind inclusionist being completely oblivious. Most times that "inclusionist"s pick fights, they happen to be restoring harmless trivia, other times it is spam or BLP violations, this time it happened to be Nazi propaganda. At least I hope that's what happened. "...expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article"? I have never seen an admin get ONUS this hilariously backwards.

[tarantino]

This is a Wired story from two years ago. We had a thread on it then, which contains an exposé of Coffman.
Wired story on K.e.coffman

You even commented on it.

[Midsize Jake]

Yeah, I was going to merge this with the earlier thread, but then the Women's World Cup game started, so... Maybe I'll do it during the Zambia-Japan game.

[Zoloft]

Merge done. Enjoy your futbol!