User talk:Thekohser

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thekohser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

per the WP:AN discussion that many would like to see happen

Decline reason:

Not a valid unblock reason, you can not cite a hypothetical discussion as a reason to unblock — Prodego ^talk 02:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thekohser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

We have plenty to lose in unblocking you, we've already lost enough time discussing your unblock and will undoubtedly have to waste more on more drama were you to be unblocked. Clearly your presence is detrimental to the project given the disruption it causes so I think it would be inappropriate to unblock. — John Reaves 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Over the past 20 months or so, I have garnered a number of critics within the Wikipedia community. Within the "heat" of these discussions, I think a certain amount of "light" has been obscured, one element of which is this apparent notion that I am not even capable of contributing accurate, excellent, and ethical material to the encyclopedia project. I would like to be unblocked for 7 days and nights, to allow me the opportunity to produce 100 edits that may serve as a record of the sorts of things that I could do for Wikipedia, were the baiting and the revenge to cease. Of course, I would promise not to participate in any sort of on-wiki or off-wiki baiting and revenge during those 168 hours. I'm having trouble seeing what the Wikipedia community has to lose in this demonstration, other than an unproven preference to view me as nothing more than a spiteful, talentless self-promoter. Also, the co-founder of this entire project has suggested that I "should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia". -- Thekohser 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't unblock without consensus but for the record, I support this idea. – iridescent 16:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, you said "Of course, I would promise not to participate in any sort of on-wiki or off-wiki baiting and revenge during those 168 hours" - what happens after those 7 days Greg? Are you going to stop making attacks regardless for an indefinite period of time? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that would depend on the behavior of several of my key adversaries during those 7 days. You know, I've been on the receiving end of defamation bordering on libel, plagiarism, and speculative musings that have no basis in truth or even logic. I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to the theory that I must silently acquiesce to these barbs, simply because I'm a blocked editor of this website. Somebody has to "be nice" first, and it might as well be me. If the one-week conditional aspect of this term of niceness prevents you from accepting it, that seems to be your problem, not mine. -- Thekohser 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to John Reaves ("undoubtedly have to waste more on more drama") for proving my very point about speculative musings. I guess personal opinion, rather than examinations of facts, rules the day on Wikipedia once again! -- Thekohser 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A fresh start means just that Mr. Kohs, a fresh start. Bringing along old baggage, wanting to settle old scores, is not part of a fresh start. If you need to close old feuds first, then do so. But until you're prepared to make a fresh start, you're likely to remain block'd. When you're ready to forgive and forget, then you'll get unblocked. If other people can't do the same, then they'll be dealt with then. Sorry that it works out this way, eh, but this is how cookies crumble. WilyD 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you are encouraging me to continue a campaign of relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism. Great! -- Thekohser 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Greg, why does that attitude not constitute blackmailing the community? --David Shankbone 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't? -- Thekohser 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which appears to be the reason people do not want you unblocked. You are saying that for 20 months you have engaged in a campaign of relentless sockpuppetry and antagonism, and it will only stop if we let you edit again and give you a fresh start. I don't see how that is a persuasive strategy; people do not usually respond well to ultimatums. --David Shankbone 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Shanky, I've asked to be unblocked for 168 hours to help improve the encyclopedia, with a bonus promise not to antagonize anyone. If you want to call that an "ultimatum", that's your twisted decision. I thought the point of this project is to build an encyclopedia. I think I'm stumbling on some pretty clear evidence that this is not the actual case. -- Thekohser 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that it assumes your presence will help to build an encyclopedia, and there are quite a few people who feel your past behavior has hindered the building of it, wasted their time, or will be a distraction to them and others on here if you are back. Just because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia that everyone should edit. That idea seems to be lost on some critics, that there is no "right to edit Wikipedia". --David Shankbone 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that there are "quite a few people" who feel that I've hindered the project by telling the truth about some of its worst agents. The surprise, to me, is that you (an intelligent person) would conclude that their presence and activity in the project is more worthwhile than my own. It's so inconvenient being "distracted" by factual narratives of lies, cover-ups, denials, and scandalous leadership, no? -- Thekohser 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg, you and I have the exact same problem, that even when we may be right we trip over our own feet in how we communicate. It isn't a lot to have asked you to stop antagonizing and sockpuppeting for a few months - three, I believe. You are allowing your pride to affect your judgment. --David Shankbone 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't encourage it, but I've naught but a tiny carrot, and no stick that hasn't already been applied to you. Obviously what I can say is unlikely to influence your opinion. But the best I can do is consul you about what's likely to happen for different actions. Antagonising people, for any purpose other than antagonising them, probably won't get you what you want, and will only serve to make you look like a jerk. If your purpose is just to antagonise, what can I say that'll matter?

But, basically, when you're prepared to make a genuine fresh start, forgiving or forgetting (or both!), then, I believe, you can be unblocked and allowed to participate on Wikipedia again. If that's not your goal, or the price is too high, then there's nothing to be done, and it seems things will remain the same, yeah. WilyD 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've observed something very interesting, WilyD. On Wikipedia, it's considered "antagonism" to tell the truth about something that someone else would rather tell a lie about. The so-called antagonism is then described as a blockable and/or bannable offense, and thus the whistleblower is successfully portrayed as a disgruntled curmudgeon who owes everyone an apology for getting himself banned. It's really too funny, if you think about it. I'll bet they never have arguments like these over at World Book or Britannica. Can you trace step-by-step those whom I have "antagonized" on Wikipedia? I believe you'll find that every one of those whom I've "antagonized" has lied about something that I wished to tell the truth about, and they successfully played the victim in order to see me blocked and/or banned. But I need to be the one who shows up for a "genuine fresh start"? You're right. Since I'm self-respecting person, the "price is too high". -- Thekohser 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not intending to suggest that you don't have legitimate complaints (nor I am suggesting that all your complaints are necessarily legitimate - either way, I'd need an itemised list to comment), but that your behaviour has been needlessly antagonistic (and in fact, I do believe you've mixed legitimate complaints with needless needling). Your unsuccesful clothing line comes to mind ...

But the rest of what you say isn't quite right either. The ethic is that if you show up for a "genuine fresh start" you should be given one too. If you arrive in good faith, and act in good faith and others don't, then they're the ones who need to be dealt with.

In any event, that's the sum total of what I'm empowered to do, or just about anyone else is empowered to do either. From a realistic perspective, why would the community want to invite you back so you can settle your old grudges? WilyD 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A good number of people thought that my ArbCom-candidate line of merchandise was very humorous, good-natured, and instructive of larger issues at play. Do you recall that the candidate was using secret mailing lists to antagonize quite innocent and productive contributors to the project of building an encyclopedia, or have you selectively forgotten that? Much as we might lampoon a devious political leader, I executed a similar jest. When I discovered that the subject of that lampoon did not appreciate the work, she offered to take down a retaliatory blog post (that accused me of being an inadequate father) if I took down the storefront. I immediately complied, but then she back-pedaled out of her own tit-for-tat offer. Please, when you show me a realistic perspective, we can talk about realistic perspectives. Do you HONESTLY think if I trotted in here last week and said, "I'm not going to be bad any more, I want to edit Wikipedia, sorry for all the stuff in the past," that I would be quickly unblocked and allowed to edit? We TRIED that path back in February 2007, and it wasn't a couple of days before a certain ex-ArbCom candidate fabricated a story about how I've given "misleading information to journalists", then refused to substantiate it. This is surreal! -- Thekohser 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg, you are the one asking to return; we are not the ones asking you back. Do you no longer wish to return, or is it only on your terms? --David Shankbone 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so that I am clear, do you David Shankbone now speak for all Wikipedians? You're sounding as if you do. Strange how this whole discussion was spawned by User:WAS 4.250 without my even asking him or anybody to be unblocked. I've merely riffed off of his initial catalytic decision to act. Why isn't WAS 4.250 being called out as a disruptive troll for setting off this entire conflagration? -- Thekohser 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WAS wasn't trolling, but acting in good faith off Jimbo's comment. If you're not interested in being unblocked, a clear statement to that effect can probably end the whole affair swiftly. And, of course, nobody speaks for Wikipedia as a whole, but it is a correct assessment that the collective mood is not desperation to have you return, I wouldn't take that personally. WilyD 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot truly speak to the future, of course. I'm not a psychic. But a number of hopeless looking cases have been turnt about. Truthfully, if you ask me for something I don't have, I won't give it to you. What I can say is that if you act on the level, and you get screwed over, it's far easier to rectify than if you assume you'll get screwed over and act according to that. There is some nontrivial amount of support for you if you "behave", for want of a better term. Maybe the community isn't a right fit for you, I don't know. But what there is is some rumbling this way, and if you're interested in unblock/unban it's what can be talked about at this point. WilyD 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More about a former ArbCom candidate

Meanwhile, just so you visitors to my Talk page don't think I'm making up stories about the types of people who are the real problem at Wikipedia, here's one admin's opinion that you may have missed. -- Thekohser 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of ban

Greg, just my thoughts at this stage, having read through some (but definitely not all) of the history. It appears that you have two goals: (1) to point out problems in the way that Wikipedia is run, and (2) to have the ban against your editing lifted. I will say that (1) is generally not so interesting to me (though certainly a valid pursuit), and doesn't seem worthy of an extensive, community-wide discussion like that going on at WP:AN. As for (2), if you are serious about pursuing it, I would suggest that your approach, above, is not helping. I don't contest the truth of what you say, but rather the choice of topics to pursue. It really doesn't matter what one person might or might not be encouraging you to do. It really doesn't matter who might act as though they speak for the entire community. This discussion is not about these individuals, and your attempts to discredit them do not help anyone get closer to a decision about whether it's a good idea to lift the ban.

The ban, as far as I can tell, is in place due to behavior that is deemed disruptive. In order to have the ban lifted, I think you have to either convince the community that it was not disruptive in the first place (an extremely tall order), or concede that you might have handled it better and provide some insight into how you might handle similar situations in the future. Thus far, you have not done either. While I concur with Jimbo Wales that it is, in general, worth considering a fresh start, I don't see good conditions for granting a fresh start at the moment. And endless consideration is not in anyone's interests. I'd suggest you either should give a fresh overview of where you think we are, where you think we should go, and why; or simply let the matter drop for a while, before making a fresh appeal. -Pete (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Pete, I don't think Greg needs to make concessions. The behavior everyone has focused on is not the 2006 MyWikiBiz stuff, but his antagonism, insults to valued people in the community and sockpuppeting. Maybe I'm wrong, but having read through it all that is what I see. So when Greg appears to make statements that unless we unblock him so he can do his "100 edits" and then people apologize to him, it does not make a lot of sense. It has always been Greg who wants to be here. Much of the way he is taking this issue on is as if we extended an invitation; true, WAS initiated this, but Greg confirmed he wants to return. That has also always been my understanding in my own interactions with Greg. So...it's a strange place from which to argue for conditions and apologies, and to continue to cast aspersions as he did yesterday. --David Shankbone 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

David, you speak as if no aspersions had been cast at me yesterday. "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?" -- Thekohser 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A message for Admin:Duk

This editor wants to follow the rules and edit productively. -- Thekohser 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This directly contradicts your "100 edits for an apology" thing, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the "100 edits" thing once again. I have offered 100 edits if I am unblocked for 7 days and left unmolested by antagonists. I don't need or ask for any apologies from anyone. The next 100 edits would be conditional on one apology from any of four people, one of whom has already sent me a rather apologetic-sounding e-mail. But, I don't see how "wants to follow the rules and edit productively" contradicts a wish to "follow the rules and edit productively for 7 days and 100 edits". Are you saying that terms of a user unblock must contain the condition that the editor promises to make MORE THAN 100 EDITS? What is the threshold? 106 edits? 500 edits? 16,049 edits? A lifetime of edits? I didn't know that membership in the Wikipedia editor community carries a requisite number of edits without apologies. I thought 100 was suitably generous, actually. -- Thekohser 12:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the terms of a user unblock must contain the condition to make a number of edits. Quite the contrary, the number of edits to be made after the unblock are pretty irrelevant. It's not us that demand 100 edits, it's you who says you won't make more than 100 edits until certain conditions are met. I suppose that's fine by me, 100 good edits are still 100 good edits. But, quite frankly, that condition gives me the impression that you do not want to be unblocked because you want to help the encyclopedia, you want to be unblocked so you can get people to apologize to you. --Conti|✉ 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, imagine that. Holding a desire to hear an apology from someone who has either lied about you, defamed you without evidence, or plagiarized your work and removed attribution to the original -- that sounds downright criminal! I should be double-plus-re-banned for even harboring such a thought, don't you think? -- Thekohser 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, I don't think so. And I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that I might think so from reading my comment above. It just would be nice if you would be here for the encyclopedia, and not for the apologies. There's nothing criminal about the latter, tho. --Conti|✉ 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Here for the encyclopedia" was what my WMF Board election run was all about, but I only received 125 "first place" votes. Another example of my service to the encyclopedia is found on this account's contribution history, from March 2005 through at least June 2006. I'm a much better, more informed editor now than I was then, too. (I think you know that I had "come to the conclusion" more as a tongue-in-cheek way of extending the discussion, than as a serious evaluation of your sentiments.) Come on, Conti, ease up. I think we're on the same side here. Let's keep our focus on the real trouble-makers at Wikipedia, those four from whom I seek apologies (after giving away 100 free, tender loving edits, of course). What's taking ArbCom so long to rule on one of them, too? -- Thekohser 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What someone claims and what he's doing can be two different things sometimes, and the result of the WMF board elections might have been a very subtle hint that not everyone agrees with the things that you do (or how you do them, who knows?). Anyhow, I'm not really sure what else to say here. I can't comment on ArbCom, since I've got nothing to do with them and haven't kept up with the Big Case, and I'm not sure I agree with you on who the real trouble-makers are, either. And even if I would, I'd doubt that a few apologies would solve anything. Letting go of the past (on both sides) and working together productively would be what I'd try to do. --Conti|✉ 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I'll unblock you in a day or so, unless consensus magically appears for a ban. See here. --Duk 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction of multiple falsehoods

Sorry to drag you all more into this, but I just want to give an example of how User:JzG habitually lies about me, and nobody calls him on it.

JzG: And what about the ongoing and current issues of sockpuppetry and abusive emails?

Kohs: I don't recall sending anyone an "abusive" e-mail. Here is the probable content of what I sent to JoshuaZ, which he called "abusive":

I really feel sorry for you, Joshua, what with that YouTube video floating around (link to video). You're your own worst enemy, and it's delightful to watch for as long as you don't yet realize it.

Like I said, I feel sorry for you. Your social adjustment and self-awareness issues far exceed my own. I wish you the best of luck in the endeavor of fixing them.

This sounds a bit blunt, but do keep in mind this was written while JoshuaZ opined that I have a "moral failing and a general inability to function with a larger community". But only my reply is "abusive", not his, let's assume.

JzG: he was agitating on WikBack for a change to policy to allow his paid editing to resume

Kohs: I had opened discussion on WikBack.com about the nature of paid editing. I had, and still have, NO desire to resume paid editing for my own gain. I've told JzG this several times, but he just ignores it, since it's more inflammatory to portray that I am trying to enhance my six-figure-per-year occupation at a Fortune 100 company with a side-business that might net me $2,000 over the course of a year of hard work. Meanwhile, the admin who ran WikBack decided to take down all of the fruitful discussions that had been generated there. That is informative of motives, as well, I think.

JzG: If he wants to contribute content then a mechanism already exists: he can post it on his site in a GFDL compliant area.

Kohs: And JzG showed us in January 2008 how that GFDL attribution can be trashed and content plagiarized at his personal, vengeful whim! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Arch_Coal)

JzG: active retaliation against the foundation including attempts to have charitable status withdrawn.

Kohs: I have never sought to have the WMF's charitable status withdrawn, and I have counseled about this multiple times, too. I sought to have authorities investigate why earlier filings of Form 990 indicated "no business relationships" between the Directors, even though 60% of them were employed by the same company. I wished for this misinformation to be exposed and corrected. I never expected the WMF to lose its non-profit, tax-exempt status. Anyone with any intelligence on the matter would realize that when United Way ran into a similar trouble of self-dealing, the culpable parties were punished criminally, not the entire organization.

JzG: These are not unsubstantiated claims. Kohs was not banned, as he claims, for having a spat with Jimbo, he was banned for sockpuppetry () and block evasion

Kohs: I was not banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion. A block in early 2007 was purportedly for using "legal intimidation" -- for suggesting that it was defamatory for another user to say I had "given misleading information to journalists" and then refuse to substantiate with one smidgen of evidence. The block before that was thanks to Jimbo unilaterally deciding (without community discussion) that there was "inappropriate use of Wikipedia name in commerce; implying that people can pay him to get listed in Wikipedia". The block log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMyWikiBiz) is very clear, so it's odd that JzG would make up his own new reasons for bans and blocks. According to SirFozzie, I'm not even banned any more, just blocked.

JzG: he had Viridae restore a WP:CSD#G5 - an article on one of his clients which he created while banned, evading his ban.

Kohs: JzG is talking here about the article Liz Cohen. Cohen was never a "client" of mine, I was simply an admirer of her work. You can ask Cohen... she's never paid me one cent for any activity whatsoever. The creation of the article in question, at 05:19 UTC on March 27, 2007, was by User:Zibiki Wym, who was unblocked by Jimmy Wales at the time, and certainly not "banned" or "evading a ban" on March 27, 2007. Viridae was not acting on my orders at any time, either. I publicly questioned why JzG would delete a perfectly acceptable article about performance artist Liz Cohen, and Viridae agreed with my concerns and acted to restore the article. That's all. Why would JzG make up lies about "clients" and "ban evasion" like this, were it not simply a personal vendetta for him?

JzG: If in that time we have a number of GFDL compliant articles provided out of MyWikiBiz and copied by editors with no known involvement with Kohs elsewhere (specifically WR) then we will have proof of the decent, unbiased content Kohs asserts he wishes to provide.

Kohs: This is a highly ironic suggestion, being that the article about Arch Coal was provided in this exact way, without payment, copied into Wikipedia by an unaffiliated unpaid editor, then attacked by Jimmy Wales, then 15 MONTHS LATER, the attribution was removed by... wait for it... JzG himself, so that JzG would appear to the world to be the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the article, not MyWikiBiz! JzG then claimed multiple times on WikBack.com to be the ab initio author of the revised article, even though the diff evidence clearly shows that he plagiarized without accreditation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=79689733&oldid=76592206). So, now I am requested to repeat this process multiple times, for what? So that JzG can steal my work and claim it as his own, additional times in the future, presumably again without any Wikipedia-based reprimand? No thanks!

JzG: I will never lose my innate suspicion of someone whose first reaction to Wikipedia is not "how can I help" but "how can I make a buck out of this"

Kohs: "First reaction"? Isn't it peculiar that User:Thekohser began editing Wikipedia without payment on March 25, 2005? I then made nearly 600 unpaid, encyclopedia-serving edits to Wikipedia over the course of about 15 months BEFORE even conceiving of the idea of MyWikiBiz, a paid-to-edit content firm. The truth is all there (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=600&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Thekohser&namespace=&year=2006&month=6) but JzG can't be bothered with the truth when it gets in the way of his personal vendetta.

JzG: but I try very hard not to bear grudges and I don't stalk the edits of people I don't like.

Kohs: I think someone needs to try harder.

Greg. I'm not going to comment about the material about JzG but if it shares the level of accuracy that your claims about me are you are no doubt being deliberately deceptive. So let's add a few notes. For example, the quote above is only part of what you emailed me. And moreover, you sent your email before I made the comment you quote. At minimum, you are lying about the timing. Moreover, you deliberately take out the statement I made out of context. (I'll refrain from discussing also how you attempted in those emails to justify your sale of such underwear by saying that you had called Durova out. Most sane people would agree that seeing such behavior as remotely socially acceptable does demonstrate serious problems with the individual in question) As you know, since you got the email, the statement made was that if you were seriously comparing my discussing on ANI your likely behavior to selling underwear with someones face on it then there's a serious moral failing. Frankly, I doubt anyone would disagree with that. And you don't at all mention your follow-up email in which you did engage in which making among other statements you made you said that "siding" with Durova occured "at my own risk". If that isn't a thinly veiled threat I don't know what is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

www.dictionary.com - look up "abusive". As in "This schoolhouse clique's continued misuse of perfectly simply words to garner undeserved sympathy for their side in their self-created wikiwar is an abusive misuse of the English language." Seriously. Greg's email, as he admits, was "blunt", but even if we take you at your word, the only other descriptions that can be applied are "misleading," "inaccurate" and "mean." Heck, you could even go so far as to say "delusional," if you desperately want to indulge in some more random public name calling. But what it was not, what it did not amount to, was abuse. Abuse is what you lot have directed at Kohs... in a forum where, until recently, he didn't have the right of reply. Now -that's- abusive.

And while I'm on the subject, could you perhaps get over the whole "face on the underwear thing"? It's a ridiculous over-reaction because you don't like Greg. Unless and until you start your crusade against Disney for putting Mickey's face on underwear and therefore "abusing" the beloved mouse, I think people can see it for what it is.211.31.166.245 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)