User talk:Thekohser

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Hello Thekohser, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!
Majorly (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Majorly. It is nice (and hopefully a more frequent experience) to be welcomed on a Wikimedia project! -- Thekohser 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck in the election! :) Majorly (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My success will not be in votecount, but in voicing a message. We'll see. - Thekohser 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Good luck with your nomination. Considering the current candidate field, I will likely vote for you. Ucucha 12:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, Ucucha. - Thekohser 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not logging in for (I assume) obvious reasons as a WP admin, but while you won't win (even if you get the right number of votes, Jimbo will likely find a way to disqualify you), I think having a true opposition voice to raise concerns would genuinely be a good thing. A lot of Wikimedia projects (particularly en-wikipedia, as it's the largest and thus most unmanageable) have serious problems, and someone able to point those problems out would be a net benefit.92.10.102.3 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making this important point, 92.10.102.3. It is an important question to ask the Foundation Board and the Wikimedia communities: "Is the Wiki(p)(m)edia organism healthy enough to willingly accept a vaccine shot, or is it so feebly teetering on the edge of equilibrium that even one critic within its government could make the whole organism dreadfully (perhaps mortally) ill?" - Thekohser 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

Sorry Greg, but I believe you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and to my mind have done nothing but promote a view that is critical of WMF. You favor unbridled self-promotion, which as a board member, is a blatant conflict of interest for the future. I do not trust you, do not believe you have the patience to act as a Board member, and demonstrably fail to tolerate criticism. I urge all Wikimedians to oppose you in the election, and if elected, I urge the board not to seat you. --BradPatrick 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opposition, Brad. Considering the record of your stewardship during your $160,000-per-year employ with the Foundation, I suspect your rejection of my bid will actually generate quite a few more votes in my favor. -- Thekohser 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more troubled by stuff like his disruptive impersonation of good-faith users on en.wiki and penis-themed BLP vandalism. That's the kind of stuff 16-year-old vandals do; not the actions of a business professional. krimpet ✽ 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good examples of how you're not paying attention, Krimpet. The John Russ Finley account's main purpose was to get the "History of West Eurasia" article taken down. It was garbage. Complete garbage. The main purpose of that ZDNet edit was to demonstrate to a Ziff-Davis reporter that his opinions about the wonder and glory of Wikipedia might be wrong. Short-lived experiments and examples go a long way toward making people see the light. You fail to note that the West Eurasia article is finally gone, and that Russell Shaw hasn't written any more blindly sweet editorials about Wikipedia. Score: Thekohser 2, Krimpet 0. -- Thekohser 10:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Krimpet now twice to stop polluting my Meta Talk page with negative energy. Krimpet appointed ~~him~~herself a long time ago as one of my top adversaries on Wikipedia. We get it. SHhe doesn't want me to win the Board election. We get it. SHhe thinks I'm a very bad man. We get it. Just wait for the vote tally on June 26th. Won't that be the judge of things? I hereby give permission to any visitor to this page to remove any further comments from Krimpet here. They are not welcome by me. And this is the de facto policy I have learned from Jimmy Wales and Guy Chapman -- remove comments from unwanted visitors who are just "trolling". -- Thekohser 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Greg, I personally do not care on the issues other people raised on your activities in the past. But I strongly disagree with your position towards the BLP problem. Your intention to have articles on living persons without biography deleted as soon as any difficulties show up, is definitely not in the line of the Wikipedia project at all. The current remedies against violation of personal rights are sufficient. Sorry, but your position will not allow me to provide you with my support. Best -- Ernstol 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G'day Candidate!

First I thought I'd offer a thank you for being brave / foolish enough to put your hat in the ring as a candidate for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! - I wonder if you might have any time, interest, and enthusiasm to record a brief 10 / 15 minute audio interview about yourself / the reasons for your candidature / your wiki philosophy etc. etc. ? - I've been promoting a project on the english wikipedia called NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a grassroots effort to promote good communications through (semi) regular 'podcasts'.

If you have a couple of moments free, would you mind taking a look at this page and signing up if you're interested! It'd be great to chat with each and every one of you, and I hope you'll be amenable to this idea! Let me know if you've any questions at all, thought perhaps my english wikipedia talk page is the best spot.

The best of luck, and kind regards,

Privatemusings 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License

Could you license your image please, so that it adheres to meta's Inclusion policy...--Comet styles 12:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you recommend a license that allows for personality rights to be maintained, so that I have some assurance that my image will not end up on a Wikia, Inc. wiki about "spanking art", as happened with some GFDL images of Boy Scouts earlier this year? - Thekohser 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm that's a hard one, since fairuse is no longer allowed on wikimedia due to the Licensing policy and the Exemption doctrine policy has not been accepted on Meta yet, so I would recommend a creative commons license for now :) ...--Comet styles 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the licenses allowed on Commons waive personality rights (at least, not the main ones: Creative Commons and GFDL). If Wikia is misusing freely licensed images in ways that violate personality rights, then hopefully that will be corrected; however, it is not a function of the copyleft license chosen except insofar as people misunderstand the license.--Ragesoss 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plannning the 'real world' conversation

Thanks for both your interest and patience in setting up an audio conversation - I'm afraid I've found myself both 'real world' busy, and it took me a moment to figure out what the best way forward in organising these conversations could be.

I've created a 'sign up' sheet over at User:Privatemusings/ElectionDiscussions - which it would be great if you could peruse, and sign up at a suitable time. The times are in 'UTC' (which I gather is the official 'wiki' time) - but if you have any problems converting, there's a seperate section for you to simply drop the appropriate information in. I already have many of you as Skype contacts - but if you haven't forwarded this information so far, you can submit that at this time also.

I'm aiming to publish this podcast on 6th June - and believe (and hope!) that it might raise the profile of the election a little bit, as well as humanising the people behind the screen names a little. Thanks for your willingness to engage with this - head over here as soon as possible, and let's get chatting! cheers, Privatemusings 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User confirmation

Dear Sir,

Someone posted a message on the Wikipedia fr's w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro (general discussion place), with an account name very similar to yours. Please see this message. Since the content of the message is somewhat related to the on-going election, could you confirm that this account is yours? If this is not the case, you may like to ask for a CheckUser.

Sincerely.

Jérôme 18:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas évident? Rendre à Jimbeau les choses qui sont Jimbeau, et à LeKohser les choses qui sont LeKohser. - Thekohser 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked suckpuppet?

Hi - are you really en:User:Thekohser - blocked sockupet of en:User:MyWikiBiz who have vandalized Wikipedia. --Smihael 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He is. giggy _(:O) 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "sockupet", but they sound cute! I have occasionally vandalized Wikipedia -- but only very rarely, to make an educational point for those willing to pay attention. I would say that 98% of my sockpuppet-generated edits have been for the greater good of understanding truth and responsibility within the Wikimedia system. To call that "vandalizing" is truly crass.

Oh, by the way, there are a number of sockpuppets that are attributed to me for which I haven't had one moment of responsibility. CheckUser is often interpreted by people who make mistakes and/or people who don't care if they make mistakes. -- Thekohser 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian winter has been strangely warm this year. :( giggy _(:O) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you've been banned from Wikipedia, think that destruction to make a point is okay, and admit to directly contravening systems put in place to help maintain accuracy, and you want us to vote for you? Why? 98.209.213.199 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being a Comcast customer, 98.209.213.199. How are things in Ypsi? I grew up in Jackson, you know. Here we go with this notion of "destruction" again, huh? Does a doctor "destroy" a tumor when she, without a moment's hesitation or doubt, cuts the tumor's blood supply, removes it from the body, and throws it in the medical waste bin? The systems that Wikipedia has in place to help maintain accuracy are wholly inadequate. My all-too-simple breeching experiments (and those of others) help many otherwise deluded people to finally realize this. You see, I'm all about implementing scientifically-measurable changes that will actually improve the accuracy disaster that is Wikipedia, and that's why so many people are voting for me in their #1 or #2 spot. Just wait for the results. You're going to be surprised. Most of the other candidates are paying lip service to the status quo. For those who think Wikipedia is just fine, as is, those other candidates are super duper choices. For the rest of us, we know who will send the strongest message to the Foundation. Thanks for stopping by and giving me this opportunity to once again educate those who are too drunk on JimboJuice to even question how and why I was banned from Wikipedia! - Thekohser 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on basic WHOIS knowledge, for the record, the IP is not to hide my identity, but because I was too lazy to register on meta (especially with the Grand Unified Login coming soon). To let you know, I'm en:User:Nburden. Yes, a doctor does destroy the tumor. You seem to be confused. Destruction is not bad if it is destroying something bad. However, does the doctor try to convince a patient to have a tumor removed by slashing the patient's stomach? No, he discusses with the patient the harmful effects that the tumor would cause if it were not removed, as well as the risks of removing it. He doesn't destroy something which has a benevolent purpose to prove the point. Such concerns should have been brought to discussion, rather than turning to vandalism. Oh, and you never answered my question. 98.209.213.199 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (en:User:Nburden - ask on talk if you've got another sock...)

Wow, Nburden, we may have to lance that JimboJuice out of you. You're completely stuffed to the gills with it! Obviously, the doctor/tumor metaphor was an aid to your understanding of the situation. As there are no post-graduate schools of WikiMedicine, my metaphor was never meant to be taken to the literal extreme that you chose to stretch it. Obviously, I have neither the time nor inclination to persistently vandalize Wikipedia day and night, week after week. Over the past 18 months or so, I have probably vandalized Wikipedia about 15 times or so, always to prove a larger point that needs addressing, but few are mature or sage enough to tackle. What you may be confusing is my ample use of sockpuppets to continue healthy conversations about ethics, about self-promotion, about lying-as-standard-procedure, and about accuracy in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, such discussions are not vandalism.

Now, to answer your question about "Why do I want you to vote for me?" I have issued a series of several dozen reasons, found here. Oh, and if you prefer the soothing tone of my human voice, there is this spot. Make it a great day, and Let's Go Tigers! - Thekohser 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] voters

Could it be that they are waiting until all answers regarding WV are done ? Election still goes about 2 weeks :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, talk) 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that sincerely, I have this wonderfully functional bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to show you. Cheap! -- Thekohser 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I can not speak for other WV participants, but the election at first didn't interest me much (also because I didn't know any of the candidates) and with the WV question I got more interested and this could also be the case for other WV participants (all WVs got informed by this). But it is a fact that WV as the youngest foundation project has less registered accounts. Is there a public link where can be seen the stats you mentioned ?

Thank you again for your comment. We will use all inputs by the candidates for the WVs. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here is a public link you can browse and look forward and back for other commentary. - Thekohser 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Gregory, ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a better link which will also be kept updated: User:Pathoschild/Board elections statistics, ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, talk) 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question related to your board candidacy

I have two questions related to your board candidacy. It would be great if you could answer them to help in me deciding who to vote for in the board election.

On your userpage you say that as a board member you would advocate the changing of the deletion criteria. Would you use your position as a board member to attempt to influence the community more than a standard editor on Wikipedia would?
You also state that you would like further involvement by commercial companies. Do you think that the policy of NPOV should still be followed?

Thanks for reading this message and good luck in your board candidacy.

Anonymous101 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, on your questions page you seem to apply that users should be made to make their real name public. Is this want you meant to say? Anonymous101 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions, Anonymous101.

I would not be attempting to influence the community at all regarding changing the deletion criteria, as that would be a waste of my time across so many projects. I would be attempting to influence the Board and the Staff regarding deletion criteria as it relates to semi-notable living persons. I would want to see how that pans out in experimental form, first. For example, by splitting the known sample by surnames beginning with A-L versus those M-Z. Nothing too radical without scientific evaluation first. If the Board and the Staff disagree with me, I certainly won't be "pitching" my ideas to the communities.
There is no reason to suspect that NPOV will suffer one iota because of interaction with commercial companies. The Wikimedia mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts -- among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. Why shouldn't this include commercial along with non-commercial viewpoints? This has been one of the biggest mistakes of the leadership thus far -- the notion that only unpaid volunteers have credible contributions to make. Furthermore, the implementation of contextual text advertising (such as Google AdSense) does not change the content of a page; rather, the advertising shown is dependent on the content of the page. It is a "one way" transaction which leaves the sanctity of the Wikimedia project page intact.
I apologize if I gave the false impression that all users should be forced to make their real name public. I simply applaud users who do so. What I wish to convey is that I no longer see the reason why anonymous open IP addresses need to edit the largest Wikimedia projects, where a signed-in account name (perhaps verified by an e-mail address) would impart so many more advantages in terms of responsible editing and legal indemnification. Pick any random article -- especially one about a living person -- and look back over the most recent ten IP edits. How many of them were unhospitable vandalism? My guess is that the majority will have been.

We need to remember that we are supposedly here to build excellent, accurate encyclopedias, news reports, textbooks, etc. We are not here to worship the "anyone can edit (or screw around with)" mantra. If you don't mind, Anonymous101, could you let me know here whether this response has encouraged you or not? -- Thekohser 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On English Wikiquote, we have many articles on living persons. We get very little vandalism from IP edits and plenty of good contributions. We sometimes get trolling from logged-in people with identified real-world names, so that's not foolproof.--Cato 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I hit "Random page" until I found a living person. This pair of IP edits would indicate a 50-50 split between good and bad. Cato, wouldn't you like for the Foundation to take a more active role in experimental assessments like this? Do you wonder why they don't do so now? Could it be that they are afraid of what the data would show? -- Thekohser 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Thekohser. I agree with you on IP edits and commercial use of Wikipedia, and although I disagree with you on BLP, that does not seem a problem if you are not going to over influence the community, I havent completely decided yet but I put you high up in my list of votes as your responses actually seem to show that you are quite a good candidate. Anonymous101 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that

There's no way you deserved to come last in that. Although we disagree about the WMF's usefulness (I think it is; you think it isn't), I honestly think having someone prepared to raise awkward questions would have been a net benefit to the project. Pretending the problems en-wikipedia, in particular, is currently having don't exist doesn't do anyone any good.Iridescent 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. I'll hold off on running a garden hose from my car into the closed-up interior and "sleeping it off" for another evening. :-( I do think that the WMF is potentially extremely useful. It just currently is wasting enormous opportunities to do real good in the real world, and that's a shame. -- Thekohser 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats

I see you made a legal threat. Please recant. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... So, it's okay for someone to say "You never seem to go about things smart", and to admonish me that he's within his rights to use my image without proper attribution and without my permission, and to threaten that he's going to keep on focusing his attention on me in new blogs, but I need to recant my warning to him that if he goes too far, he'll receive word from my lawyer? Grow up. This is Meta (where this appears to be the law of the land), not English Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're skirting the issue. I don't care about the dispute you're involved in, I care whether you're collaborating with others. From what I can see, and from patterns that lead to the (rather silly) enwiki policy, I believe that such legal threats are counterproductive. You should apologize for being so hasty, and work with others to resolve these issues (whatever they are). — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you took the time to jump immediately on me, but you have not spent one bit of effort to notify Shankbone that his commentary was unnecessarily caustic, baiting, and indeed threatening. But, to appease your one-sided weakness, I'll see what I can do with that comment of mine. I'll look for your heartfelt "thank you" here moments after I amend. -- Thekohser 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me, so I'll not bother defending myself. I appreciate the effort it takes to apologize, admitting one's mistakes, so "Thank you." — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take caution

Read my reply to your comments on my talk page very carefully. If you continue the type of edits you posted, and I understand your anger, I really do, but if you continue... I'll open a request for comments and seek your disconnection from our project. You help is wanted, but not needed at the cost it may incur. If you want my help, email me within the interface and I can guide you a little - if you like. I don't want to see you go down the wrong road on our project. Respectfully, NonvocalScream 14:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Did you notice the comments made here that seem to warn that someone's "friends in low places" could have some material impact on the priorities I place on my four-year-old daughter, with a finishing flourish that wonders aloud how my wife doesn't have problems with me? Did you leave any similar threat to "disconnect" that person from this project? I checked your recent history. No, you didn't. -- Thekohser 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not visit such a post to my talk page as you did. That is why I immediately responded to you. I am still evaluating what happened on the Planet Wikimedia page - expect that both sides will be treated accordingly. I just don't have 30 hours in a day. I wish I did. More will be forthcoming. But it takes a moment to sort thru the conversation. NonvocalScream 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another good point, NVS. I didn't stop to think that I was interacting more directly with you than was Shankbone, who seemed to be focusing most of his attention on two things -- preservation of his blog in the aggregator, and ridicule of me. -- Thekohser 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blog

Since you were the one who found the error in my blog when it first launched... If you don't mind checking it again? I've done some coding updates, I want to be sure it still displays everything properly. Best, NonvocalScream 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a link? -- Thekohser 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.datascreamer.com

[edit] The media has been alerted

The recent hypocrisy demonstrated by Angela "12,143 links to Wikia aren't enough" Beesley has been forwarded to the media. I hope that Angela "10 links to MyWikiBiz are too many" Beesley will think more carefully before acting so hypocritically in the public eye. I hope you're happy, too, Cometstyles. -- Thekohser 05:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blog.

David has requested that his blog be removed from the feed. This request has not been processed yet. I don't have the access to the configuration files required to do this. It will happen as soon as a dev gets to it. Best, NonvocalScream 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have noted here on January 27th, over three weeks since David's request, how slow are the wheels of justice around here. Meanwhile, I'm sure that Dr. Metroka is delighted that the Wikimedia Foundation is fulfilling its mission to be the "sum of human knowledge". -- Thekohser 15:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] wikimania bid

Hi, thanks for your interest in a Wikimania Philadelphia bid. For your information, the bids are not judged by the Board at this stage; instead, they are judged by a small Jury according to these criteria. Bids should conform to the official requirements, as well. Bear in mind that it is a great deal of work to develop a successful bid. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, phoebe 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (2010 Wikimania jury moderator)

I think he means the tourism board, not the WMF board. --Tango 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense then. (Sorry, you did clearly say that, I was just in a rush reading it). Best, -- phoebe 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

I do not have to answer to your email because for me you are just a troll. Don't remove me from the list of public speakers ! Just an example, my last presentation was in July for some employees of a telecommunication company, France Telecom. ~Pyb 11:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you wish to go against Talk page consensus and a rational plan to keep a current and orderly list of speakers, that's your prerogative. Good luck! -- Thekohser 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this edit, removing many of the most widely watched/heard Wikimedia speakers, is difficult to interpret as a sincere effort to improve the speakers list. -- sj · translate · + 05:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re:Your speaker list edit

Why I didn't change other entries has nothing to do with me changing yours. I edited yours because there seamed to be a dispute about it, so I trimmed it down to the relevant information, leaving no room to complains from the other side. Please, also mention which locations are more accessible to you. MarianoC 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no locations more accessible to you than others, that information becomes irrelevant. MarianoC 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Block notice

You have a day to think about your tone. This is not acceptable. Thanks. --თოგო ^(D) 12:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I would have blocked you over it but it was a singularly unhelpful edit. Criticise, disagree, point out issues, sure, but keep it decorous please. Even if you're provoked. For if you go incivil you just hand ammo to your critics. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can deal with 24 hours. It was fair, just so long as I'm not expected to redact my statement. Blocks are how people who can't converse with the tools of logic and reason keep their personal sense of having the upper hand. Someone who violated 3RR was really acting like a rhymes-with-fry-maybe. (Hope that doesn't earn me another 24 hours!) -- Thekohser 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see you redact your statement and get unblocked early, frankly, even if it was a symbolic 5 minutes early. If you're prepared to do so I'm prepared to unblock. GerardM's actions are not meeting with universal approval by any means, so leave it to others to deal with would be my suggestion. See meatball:DefendEachOther. ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Hello there. You might remember me from Yahoo! Answers. I must admit that the way that I acted over there was completely immature and that I have learnt from my mistakes in the past. All I want is for the slate to be wiped clean as they say. Are you willing to do so? Razor flame 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your actions on Yahoo! Answers led to my account being unfairly blocked from contributing to that popular web community. This was completely out of line and was very hurtful to me, but as you recognize it as a "mistake" and that you have learned a lesson about immaturity, I am perfectly willing to start over in terms of my opinion of you and my interaction with you. Thank you for showing a large degree of maturity by reaching out to me here, unprompted, to offer your apology.

At the same time, I will admit that I was in part using Yahoo! Answers in an exploitative fashion to drive traffic to my own website, and to perhaps bash the Wikimedia Foundation in an overly unyielding fashion. So, a lesson was learned on my part, too. I still feel that evidence, logic, and reason are the better tools for constructive debate, and I am utterly disappointed when those who cannot effectively engage those tools resort to censorship and blocks or bans to emerge victorious in the debate.

Perhaps we can work together to champion that last principle? -- Thekohser 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't say that I will work that last principle with you, but neither will I say that I won't work on it either. I will just leave it at that. Razor flame 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi Thekohser. This message is to inform you that you have been blocked for an indefinite period of time from this wiki. A review of your edits for the past few years shows that your sole purpose has been to troll around, promote your business and effectively try to disrupt this wiki (sometimes with great success); as a consequence, you are wasting a lot of our volunteers' time, time that these volunteers could put to a much better use (improving and advocating for our projects). If you wish to really contribute to the Wikimedia movement, I invite you to do so by creating a new account on this wiki and by editing for the good of Wikimedia projects. If you change your behavior and actually make constructive edits on this wiki, we will not associate this new account with you and everybody will be happy. Should you reiterate your disruptive behavior, we will be able to link your new account to this one and your new account will be blocked as well.

I am sure you will appreciate that this is the best course of actions for the Wikimedia movement and the community of meta-wiki. Thanks. guillom 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A curiously hollow invitation to suggest "creating a new account on this wiki", when Account creation from this IP address (6x.1xx.1xx.6x) has been blocked by Guillom. Might I respectfully request an unblock from either Guillom or Abigor? The reason given for the block(s) is not correct. I spent about 5 or 6 hours of professional time assisting Rand Montoya with the 2009 Fundraising Survey sampling plan and questionnaire design, for example. -- Thekohser 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another place where Thekohser has made a significant positive contribution to Meta is Planet Wikimedia/Scope... after a somewhat bumpy start, he wrote most of the page, (although others certainly helped) and it's a good example of a useful page. It's balanced and it gives the key things that someone who is considering requesting that their blog be aggregated keep in mind. This demonstrates his ability to write as well as his knowledge about WMF norms. His question on the talk about whether he was helpful or not never was answered by anyone... we could try being more polite, because the answer is yes, it was helpful. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair point. We should indeed be more polite. But that's what this whole issue comes down to -- how do we improve the quality of discourse and level of general politeness on Meta? We are extremely lenient in behavior we accept here; mild personal attacks are not actively removed from pages but allowed to stand; we are more open to trolling than most Wikimedia projects, and users banned elsewhere can usually find a place for some of their essays and insistences here. And people are finding Greg's recent engagement deeply and persistently, if subtly, impolite.

As to the contribution you cite -- that page is a small thing in the scope of daily updates to Meta. It is hard to answer a question that implies that adding a few useful paragrpahs is an unusual act or tremendous effort - that is what active editors do many times a day. Greg is a prolific and talented writer, and could contribute a thousand times as much if it were of interest to him. -- sj · translate · +

I tend to agree with the unblock request. Greg can be a valuable contributor if he wants to be. He's critical of the WMF and many aspects of the projects, but I'm convinced he is not just a troll. I am trying to get hold of Guillom to discuss this as I prefer to not lift blocks without some discussion with the blocking admin first. So I've chimed in on his talk page. Please be patient. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you are right about what is possible (possibly being a valuable contributor). However Greg has made perhaps 10 hours of constructive edits here, ever; and now never fails to mention that when contributing to a disruption. He has encouraged at least that much time in cumulative frustrated editing among others over the past week. And his user page here and comments to others are regularly confrontational and challenging in ways that disturb or demotivate others.

One of the issues that has surfaced repeatedly in strategic planning discussions is the speed with which we turn off and turn away contributors by allowing persistent aggressive editing and personal attacks. -- sj · translate · + 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This indef block is unwarranted. Greg needs to be put on notice that going forward he needs to be primarily constructive, that the good examples given become the predominant form of contribution, and disruptive behaviour will no longer be tolerated. If he undertakes to change his approach going forward, it's something he can be held to, and if he fails, he can be reblocked. A similar ultimatum was given to Greg at en:wp and appears to at least be somewhat effective, see his contribs at en:wp I am willing to lift the block if Greg makes the undertaking I outlined, and reblock if he is disruptive (as measured by a reasonable, disinterested person). I've done the same for other folk at other wikis. Sometimes it worked out and sometimes I ended up reblocking. Is that satisfactory? (note: Guillom's suggestion that Greg sock here at Meta is not a good one. It's in direct opposition to the counsel Greg has received at en:wp where he was requested/required to not sock, but stick to one account.) ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is an attempt to improve. Blocks are an attempt to stop criticism or other undesired behavior. Thekohser loses nothing by being blocked here, but meta loses. Criticism is commonly viewed as disruption by those criticized, or those supporting those criticized. If Thekohser was edit warring at Public speakers, he should have been warned, then, only if warnings were ignored, short-blocked pending discussion. Indef block appears to be retaliatory and punitive. The block should be lifted. An informal ban from editing Public speakers could be a condition of unblock; those offering themselves as speakers should not add the information, or edit to preserve it, because of conflict of interest, or otherwise edit the page controversially, but should be allowed to edit the Talk page. Please keep it simple. Blocking for actions like his is highly disruptive, and unnecessary. --Abd 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to ban him from Public speakers. While it is true Greg restored edits others removed, the main edit warrior there is GerardM, who even edit warred through protection. That's unacceptable. He has been warned but has acknowledged his error. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the block as a ridiculous overreaction, too, but I think he did some silly stuff to provoke it. Removing Jimbo from the speaker list was ridiculous, no matter what he might think of him. Perhaps it would help in getting an unblock if Greg would state unambiguously that he will not remove anybody from the speaker list in the future without solid consensus to do so. Dtobias 03:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "Reason given for block is not correct, especially considering many hours laboring for Rand Montoya to put right the 2009 Fundraising Survey. Block ID is #10510."

Unblock reason: "Thekosher should restrict himself to editing Meta only while logged into this named account. Further incivility, whether implicit or explicit, harrassing other contributors to Wikimedia projects, incivility, or edit warring will not be tolerated. Please contribute constructively and in co-operation with other users of the site. Thank you — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"

This template should be archived normally.

(block log)
(crossblock)
(luxo's)
(unblock)
(remove gblock)
(contribs: +/-)

[edit] Wikimedia Laboratories

You claim that you are administrator at "Wikimedia Laboratories". The closest to this is http://en.labs.wikimedia.org . You are not an admin there as you claim. Please clarify your claim. GerardM 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gerard,

Please double check before making a message like this, becaus he is a [admin on the Wikimedia Laboratories for the flagged revissions.

Best regards,

Huib talk 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your apology may go ________________here__________________, Gerard. -- Thekohser 16:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to get involved in this, but, on meta, is it permitted to edit other peoples comments to fundamentally change what is being said? [1]. Maybe not a good idea, that. :-) Hmmm, how hard is it to get admin on labs wikis? ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IRC discussions

Copied note from Thekohser to Darkoneko on his French Wikipedia user talk page:
It would seem to me that if you're going to have discussions on IRC about how you intend to characterize someone publicly, common courtesy would dictate that the subject of your discussion be made aware of the discussion. Maybe "spineless" is more your style, though. -- Thekohser (d) 10 novembre 2009 à 19:42 (CET)

Begin local discussion on Meta:

Good idea! Let's also ask George Bush about what he wants to see in his public characterisation, along with all others BLP. DarkoNeko 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Gregory Kohs is well-aware of BLPs and the sorry state they are in on Wikipedia. No need to be sarcastic, Darko, and "per IRC" is just about the worst thing you can claim is a consensus. Majorly talk 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Darkoneko, that an organization that has so emphatically proven that it lacks accountability and professional management of knowledge, yet upholds itself as "the sum of human knowledge", ought to better engage the living subjects of its articles to determine if they wish to have their Wikipedia article in an unfettered, a semi-protected, a fully protected, or a deleted-and-salted context. If I had a gun that I knew fired safely 99 times out of every 100 times fired, but 1 time out of 100, it fired backwards into the face of the shooter, I would expect that if I distributed these guns as "the sum of ballistic excellence", I may have some very disappointed customers in a short while. But, enough of my free lesson in ethics. What Majorly said is probably sufficient, "per IRC" is almost the punchline of a Wikipedia joke. -- Thekohser 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied note from Thekohser to Darkoneko on his Meta user talk page:
Darkoneko, you mention that consensus was obtained to add "banned from English Wikipedia" to my listing on the Public speakers grid. I want you to provide a transcript of that discussion on IRC, as I was not invited to it, I did not participate in it, and I was not notified of its outcome. -- Thekohser 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship on multiple wikis?

I saw this edit and it doesn't seem to jive with the this list of your accounts on Wikimedia. The SUL utility can sometimes be missing a database or be lagged, though, so perhaps it's just inaccurate. Or perhaps you were referring to a separate account? Could you clarify, please? Thanks! --MZMcBride 15:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Referring to a separate non-disclosed account to protect myself from harassment and stalking. -- Thekohser 16:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editing as an IP

Please take great care not to edit as an IP here at Meta. Your last unblock was conditional on that, I believe. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. So too was refraining from further incivility. I've re-blocked you. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think the particular page's creation that I spotted was inadvertent, so I was just reminding Greg of this. Mike do you have some specific cites/diffs that you can share which you feel are incivil? ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

{{unblock|Blocking admin's action was disproportionate and out of order.}}

Support, if only because (1) no evidence has been provided and (2) blocking admin seems way too close and personal. Guido den Broeder 20:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To some, this is a game. Personally, I keep hoping that one day sanity will prevail. Guido den Broeder 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your polemic comments are not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

By calling my comments polemic you confirm that the controversy exists. Perhaps you would do better to respond to arguments made rather than to call them a 'vote'? Guido den Broeder 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your polemic comments are not helpful. That your comments are polemic is not evidence of controversy, it's evidence of your unsuitability to edit here unless you change your approach. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, stand in line. So many people today seem to think that being right and insightful is a clear indication of unsuitability to participate in anything. For some reason though, I can't seem to bring myself to join that crowd and blurt out similar nonsense just to be popular and keep my head down, so I guess my 'approach' will stay the same. Let's call it my way of life, shall we? I think I deserve that. Guido den Broeder 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Mike to clarify what he sees were the specific edits that he finds problematic. I'll ask you, did you edit as an IP on purpose, or inadvertantly? Will you undertake to be more careful about it in future if you're unblocked, and if you discover it, ask for correction? I'm inclined to unblock but would like to hear from both of you first. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My editing from an IP address was inadvertent, and I will undertake to be more careful about it in the future when I'm unblocked (although, could someone remind me again why the IP editing was so perilous a concern? I sincerely do not recall, other than it being seemingly Mike Lifeguard's strong wish -- and his point seemed rather to be "no sockpuppeting on Meta", not an IP-based tripwire for insta-destruction). Furthermore, should I accidentally edit Meta in the future from an IP address without logging in, when I discover it, I will "ask for correction" (whatever that means, do you mean ask for a "revdel" from a helpful admin?). -- Thekohser 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is undisclosed a revdel is typically what one asks for. But in your case as I now understand it (could be wrong) you're not denying it's your IP and are OK to have it associated, so just correct the action.. sign the post, or make an edit to a brand new page that acknowledges the first edit was you, or whatever makes sense. If that's still not clear please ask. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't pretend to be someone else, there is nothing wrong with logged-off editing. Mike, I strongly suggest that you withdraw here, as it is clear that you can't bring yourself to be objective. Guido den Broeder 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not using an IP is a condition of the previous unblock, which I support, and Thekohser is expected to adhere to that. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The condition is impractical, serves no purpose and only gives rise to power-trips. As far as I'm concerned, it's off the table. Guido den Broeder 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not your concern, though. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just made it my concern. Surely, you are not suggesting that you own this place. Guido den Broeder 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to be concerned about it. But it's not your concern as you are not an admin here. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful, Guido. I'd like you to be one of the first guests on WikiVices, and that will be made more cumbersome if you're blocked on Meta. Lar's from Michigan, and so am I. Give him a little peninsular space, and we should be fine going forward. -- Thekohser 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you see, Guido? Admins take ownership of our concerns here. It is our duty to release these concerns to them, so that we may get on with the business of building the Meta, free of concern. -- Thekohser 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lake Adminigami, the greatest of the lot. Guido den Broeder 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, unblocked. Block-and-run is rarely appropriate. There was nothing here that I can see that made it sufficiently acceptable. --MZMcBride 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To be a bit clearer here, there a number of issues:

Incivility was mentioned, but I don't see much (if any) of that in the contributions of Thekohser or the IP;
The blocking admin blocked and then (admittedly) went away, knowing this was likely to be a controversial action; the better approach here would have been to wait to do the block when he was more available or have another admin do the block (esp. as there doesn't seem to be anything edits or actions threatening the wiki);
I don't particularly like the idea of setting honeypots (like "no IP editing"), at least not without sufficient measures in place to ensure that it's not too easy to trip them; if there is a list of IPs that Mr. Kohs uses, they can be blocked anonymous only, surely; he can also be asked to put some CSS in his personal CSS page to make the interface more noticeable when logged in; or he can be asked to employ a GreaseMonkey script that makes it impossible to edit logged out; in any case, I'm quite sure he's not the only one to accidentally edit logged out around here (I did it myself a few weeks ago, unified login be damned).

--MZMcBride 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally with you on #1 and #2. As for #3, as long as Thekohser makes a reasonable attempt not to edit from an IP and fixes it when he catches that he slipped (he's apparently said he isn't concerned about IP to user correlation) I'd strenuously oppose any block for that. But it's a reasonable request to require logged in editing so I consider the requirement to still be in force. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)