User talk:Thekohser

Jimbo Wales, on Gregory Kohs

For the record, having reviewed the situation, I think that I acted harshly and hastily; I would not do the same today. I believe that my actions got Gregory off on the wrong foot in the community, and that tensions which he feels today have their roots in my action. I hope that in some small way my apology is helpful to him, and to the rest of the community, in looking for a resolution of longstanding conflicts.

-- Jimbo Wales (December 18, 2008)

---

Articles for deletion nomination of Jacobson's

I have nominated Jacobson's, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson's. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alexius08 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How is that working out for you, Alexius08? -- Thekohser 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Alexius aware that you were community-banned, then unblocked by Jimbo, only to be re-community banned despite Jimbo's olive branch? If so, this is a really mean thing to do. Ripberger (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and they say Wikipedia has no sense of humor :) -Pete (talk)

I thought I was community-banned only once? Jimbo's unblock was of his own block. Or, is a block by Jimbo a de facto "community ban", since the community follows his every decree like a bunch of sheep? Here's my deal -- you point me to two distinct community ban !votes, and I'll donate $25 to any charity of your choosing that is not headquartered at 39 Stillman. -- Thekohser 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's not much of a practical difference between being community-banned once and being community-banned twice. :) --Conti|✉ 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. It's at my expense, as usual, but I'm in a good mood tonight. -- Thekohser 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I get Wikipedia's definition of "ban" and "blocks" mixed up. All I recall was the MyWikiBiz thing (which you stopped after talking with Jimbo), Jimbo set you free, and then your new account was banned for reasons that were never clear as Jimbo had let you go previously. I sincerely hope you do get unblocked. You should have never been banned to begin with. Sincerely, Ripberger (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ripberger. Your sentiments are shared by about 40% of the VIPs around here, but the other 60% would prefer that I stay "community banned", on the basis of a ban nomination that was pushed through by an admin who plagiarized my work, then denied it, then deleted the diffs that proved his culpability. Go figure. The ethical ones get banned by the unethical ones who hold the toolkit. -- Thekohser 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of unban/stay-banned ratios

Uh-uh. About 10% want you to stay banned (mainly those who remember how damn annoying your socks were in 2007); about 10% want you unbanned, either on the basis that you were unfairly blocked and from your activities at MWB since have demonstrated that you do know what you're doing, or on a more cynical "better inside the tent pissing out" principle; the remaining 80% don't care. What keeps you banned is a mixture of apathy, inertia, and the fact that those who do think you should be unblocked (including me) don't have the time for the inevitable long drawn out fight. This is a hobby, not a job, and you're in the unfortunate position that (Jimbo and perhaps a couple of others aside) none of those who want you unblocked are the type to hang round noticeboards arguing the matter for weeks on end. – iridescent 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's about right. Iridescent, the one thing you left out that seems pretty relevant to me, is that whenever pressed, Greg disavows even the desire to be unbanned, or to resume editing Wikipedia. I have no interest whatsoever in working on someone's behalf, when they haven't really bought into the project to begin with.

That, combined with the fact that the last round (that I'm aware of) of negotiations had Greg using his good-faith editing as a bargaining chip (i.e., with the implication that good-faith editing was only guaranteed up to a certain date). That struck me as oddly incompatible with a goal, that is pretty important to me personally, of building an editing community that is largely rooted in trust.

Greg, for whatever it's worth -- I keep an eye on this page, from time to time, because it can be entertaining, and because I like you as a person, in spite of whatever drama has surrounded your Wikipedia experience. I also think your various Wikipedia-related projects are interesting. I can't say I usually agree with what you're trying to do, but you're always up to something that makes me think. -Pete (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen your notes until now, Iridescent and Pete. I agree with you, Iridescent. I understand your position, Pete. Thing is, I have more difficulty getting "compatible" with a community rooted in trust, when so many of its VIPs have shown me a significant display of untrustworthy behavior. Before I jump on the wagon, I'd at least like to see that the wagon-drivers aren't sinisterly twirling their Snidely Whiplash moustaches. If I offered 100 good-faith edits, wouldn't someone who "trusts" Wikipedia's goal also "trust" that the good faith might very well continue to the 101st edit and beyond? -- Thekohser 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I don't have the same experience of "wagon drivers" as you do. Sure, there are lots of people who get lots of attention as being influential Wikipedians, but I really don't see them as "wagon drivers." By and large, I see them burn out and disappear. To me, that's not leadership. Yes, I know that some of these people have a special role as far as you're concerned, in that they have a fair amount of sway over whether or not you're unbanned. However, I'm not convinced I've ever seen anything close to a concerted effort by you to get unbanned. If you ever want to do that, I'm sure you will succeed. If you're ambivalent about whether it's worth the trouble or the leap of faith, that's fine with me -- I certainly am not telling you that you should try to get unbanned.

But when you talk about wagon drivers...I think you put your finger right on the major difference in our perceptions of this project. The people you're attaching such tremendous importance to simply aren't all that important (Jimmy excepted, I suppose)...except when you give them reason to be. -Pete (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I'm sorry you don't see things my way. (You're supposed to see things my way, then we can be friends, don't you know?) Anyway, last night I submitted my "formal" unban appeal to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, completing a month-long deliberation about how/whether to do so. We'll see what happens next, won't we? Should be interesting, either way. -- Thekohser 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:) Sounds good, and good luck. Since it's in ArbCom, I think any offer to help directly on my part would be meaningless...but if you want to talk any of it over, feel free to get in touch. -Pete (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift's action and retraction

MyWikiBiz, you are a banned user. You are not allowed to edit any page of this encyclopedia, including your talkpage. Now you can't edit your talkpage. If you want to appeal against the ban, please contact the Arbitration Committee. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, your action here appears to me as hostile and rude, AdjustShift. Greg may be a banned user, but there's no need for this kind of treatment. He is not disrupting the project in anyway with his commenting here. I believe he has tried to get into contact with the Arbitration Committee, but he's received no reply. Maybe it is against policy to deny him his ability to edit his talkpage, but your method and tone towards Greg was not necessary, particularly with your "Have a Nice Day!" jab after you banned him from his own talkpage. It is exceptionally difficult for me to assume good faith in your action here. Ripberger (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To AdjustShift, that post carries the uncomfortable tone of kicking a fellow in the pants after he's been shown the door. Let's do a little better. From the start I've had a standing offer to Kohser: if he avoids socking for six months and promises to abide by site policies I'll initiate his unblock proposal. Surely we're all better off if things are less polarized. Durova^Charge! 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• My action is not hostile and rude. Banned users are not allowed to edit their talkpages. See Wikipedia:Banning policy. If MyWikiBiz wants to edit the English-language Wikipedia again, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Posting needless comments here is a complete waste of time. If the ArbCom decides to reverse the ban imposed on him, he is free to edit the English-language Wikipedia once again. I write "Have a nice day" after finishing my comments most of the time. I don't believe in kicking anyone; I'm simply doing what the banning policy says. AdjustShift (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, he did, that's why Risker undeleted this talk page. So you probably should've checked with him before preventing Thekohser from editing this page. --Conti|✉ 13:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I checked. The fact is MyWikiBiz is still a banned user. The ArbCom hasn't lifted the ban imposed on him. I can't believe some of things you guys have written here. Positing needless comments here is a waste of time. If MyWikiBiz wants to post an unblock request here, he can send an email to any admin (including me), and ask the admin to let him edit his talk page, so that he can file an unblock request here. He can still send emails. AdjustShift (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • So, banned users can't use their talk page, but they can send emails? Why not the other way around? Anyhow, I was just trying to say that if ArbCom is involved in this somehow, it might be a good idea to ask them first. You know, in the case they know more than you (or me) about this issue (which, I assume, is true). --Conti|✉ 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, banned users can't edit their talkpages. See Wikipedia:Banning policy. If you have any problems with that, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and start a discussion there. The ArbCom may be somehow involved, but that doesn't change the fact MyWikiBiz is still banned. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Conti, you are a sysop. You should've known what the banning policy says. Yes, ArbCom know more than me, but they haven't lifted the ban on MyWikiBiz. I think this discussion is unhelpful; we should leave this discussion. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
          • You're right. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Using own talk page vs. sending mails. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the policy of disallowing posting to the user's own talk page is to stop disruptive behaviour, such as posting personal information or other kinds of disruption. Common sense suggests evaluation on a case by case basis. In this case, I'm not seeing where Greg is being disruptive in his discussion here. Further, given that Greg is in the process of appealing his ban to ArbCom I don't see the benefit to the project of disallowing posting here. Therefore I plan to change the block so that Greg can use his own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the block setting. Greg can now edit the talk page of this account. But, Greg can't edit the talk page of MyWikiBiz. I see no reasons why he needs to post comments on both talk pages. I would like to thank Durova, Conti, and Lar for their valuable input. AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AdjustShift. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, AdjustShift. Ripberger (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you, AdjustShift, for shifting your adjustment of my ability to communicate with people who choose to communicate with me here. -- Thekohser 03:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing alive and well on Wikipedia

At least, until I pointed it out. Some really interesting content being generated in the "for pay" ranks these days! -- Thekohser 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg, you are not supposed to be making such comments here. I changed the block setting so that you can appeal against your ban. AdjustShift (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, could you CLEARLY state for the record, that the ONLY edits a banned user may make are to his/her own Talk page, and ONLY comments in the line of appealing the ban? I don't think that's what the new policy says, AdjustShift. -- Thekohser 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this really worth it? Above I objected mainly to the glibness of 'have a nice day'. One of the most legitimate concerns that banned users have expressed is frustration at having no legitimate venue to respond when someone pokes the fork in their side after a siteban. That's a fair complaint; we're all better off if we remembered, respectfully, that even if things didn't work out we're all still human beings. Yet--and I mean this respectfully--if you wish to have your ban lifted, Greg, wouldn't it be better to also tone it down a little too? I'd like to propose your unban someday; maybe in the last few months you've started to see that the offer is genuine. Yet regardless of what it would mean for the people who remember events of 2006 and 2007, that's a long time ago by Internet standards. Most of the editors would be looking at this year, and asking questions that boil down to 'Is he more drama than he's worth?' Rootology returned and became an admin because he answered that question to the community's satisfaction. He's a good model to emulate. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether I am permitted to respond, Durova, so I'll just say "thanks" and reiterate that my formal unban request has been submitted to the ArbCom. -- Thekohser 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's technical evidence (etc. etc.) that you haven't socked in 6 months, put me in touch with the appropriate checkusers etc. and I'll support it per their advisement. Sometimes the Committee has dragged its heels for a really long time with unban appeals. So if you're slow in getting a response, ping me after a month and if everything comes up positive I'll take it to the community. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw you mentioning Water Lilies at WR...

Re [1]: Since I started this article, and bear some responsibility for watching it, I'd like to explain that the reason I didn't revert that sentence immediately was because I saw this, and thought, "Well, seems plausible." Admittedly, the Guardian isn't the best source on these matters, and it doesn't even state for a fact that Monet could see in ultraviolet light, so I apologize for being too lax. I did a little searching right now, and haven't found any convincing sources about Monet and ultraviolet light. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I am allowed to respond here, but I will just say "thank you for noticing". -- Thekohser 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban

The Arbitration Committee has decided (8/0/2) that the community ban of User:Thekohser be provisionally suspended subject to your full acceptance of and full compliance with the following terms:

1. Purpose: The purpose of your return is to help build an encyclopedia and therefore the focus of your editing is to work directly on improving Wikipedia articles.
2. Mainspace:other throttle: In pursuance of (1), you may edit with a 2:1 ratio of mainspace:other editing. You may not make "other" edits until your mainspace edits give you the credit to respond. For the purpose of calculating "other" edits, one comment is one edit.
3. Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack.
4. Sockpuppetry: You are restricted to one account. It is a condition of return that you disclose any current previously undisclosed or undetected accounts. These accounts will be blocked and redirected to User:Thekohser, which will be your only account.
5. Paid editing: You are prohibited from undertaking paid-editing of whatever nature on the English Wikipedia for one year. At the end of the year, this restriction will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
6. Paid-editing RfC: It is unfortunate that your proposed return to editing coincides with the currency of an RfC on paid editing. You may make a statement and/or proposal in your own section in the RFC providing you conduct yourself with decorum and moderation. You may not use the RfC as a platform for continuation of feuding or quarreling (see "Civility restriction" above) and are instructed to limit your participation accordingly.

You further acknowledge that ArbCom may reinstate the community ban at any time, by simple majority in a motion, if your behaviour, on whatever basis, proves disruptive.

Please confirm below that you accept these terms, and list the alternate accounts you have been using.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser responds

The principles of these terms are acceptable to me. I have some small differences with the letter of some of the terms, but it is not worth quibbling over. (For example, the "purpose" of my return is not only to "build an encyclopedia" but also to suggest some degree of restoration of the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name.)

The Committee's view on that would probably be that building the encyclopedia is a way of restoring your reputation and that nothing else is required. Still, as you're not quibbling, the point is moot.

Now the requested list is in, I'll unblock you shortly. I'll look at the accounts and sort them out separately, tomorrow now, as it's longer than I was expecting.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

An annotated listing of sockpuppets and related accounts

This list is currently as complete as I can recall, however, more are coming in from various fans of my work. If you have other accounts in mind that you are wondering about their provenance, please notify me on my Talk page here. ACCOUNT CONTRIBS BLOCK LOG Comments User:MyWikiBiz Special:Contributions/MyWikiBiz Log(s) My first sockpuppet account, opened in good faith User:QuiteNiceGuy Special:Contributions/QuiteNiceGuy Log(s) A rebuttal to "Just zis Guy" User:207.8.215.81 Special:Contributions/207.8.215.81 Log(s) IP address of ICR, building with 115+ employees User:JossBuckle_Swami Special:Contributions/JossBuckle_Swami Log(s) Clever anagram, initial block by my friend Danny Wool! User:Sewsum Basiljock Special:Contributions/Sewsum Basiljock Log(s) Clever anagram User:Shelborne Concierge Special:Contributions/Shelborne Concierge Log(s) While enjoying a vacation in Miami Beach User:Vividraise Special:Contributions/Vividraise Log(s) Hell-bent on "theater" spelling User:72.94.152.27 Special:Contributions/72.94.152.27 Log(s) West Chester, PA User:72.94.157.216 Special:Contributions/72.94.157.216 Log(s) West Chester, PA User:Earthboat Special:Contributions/Earthboat Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon User:Earthenboat Special:Contributions/Earthenboat Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jehochman User:Earthenwareboat Special:Contributions/Earthenwareboat Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jehochman User:Marsboat Special:Contributions/Marsboat Log(s) Created by me, used by Jon Awbrey User:Llama_roper Special:Contributions/Llama_roper Log(s) Created by me, used by Jon Awbrey User:Libertyvalley Special:Contributions/Libertyvalley Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon User:LBJ's_collie Special:Contributions/LBJ's_collie Log(s) Created by me, deliberately easy-to-crack password compromised by an unknown troll User:Mister_GJK Special:Contributions/Mister_GJK Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Morven (name even included my initials!) User:Neptune_ship Special:Contributions/Neptune_ship Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon User:Jupiterboat Special:Contributions/Jupiterboat Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon User:Nathaniel_Riddely Special:Contributions/Nathaniel_Riddely Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Raul654 ("confirmed evidence") User:UranusVessel Special:Contributions/UranusVessel Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon User:SpamWatcher Special:Contributions/SpamWatcher Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Jpgordon. This account was very helpful in uncovering WP:SPAM, but it was blocked anyway. User:Shatner's_First_Wife Special:Contributions/Shatner's_First_Wife Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Raul654 ("confirmed evidence") User:Second_City_Denmark Special:Contributions/Second_City_Denmark Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Krimpet User:Quackers_the_duck Special:Contributions/Quackers_the_duck Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Raul654 User:Pluto_Car Special:Contributions/Pluto_Car Log(s) Created by me, used by Jon Awbrey User:Thekohser_XIV Special:Contributions/Thekohser_XIV Log(s) Username block by Prodego User:161_Mountain Special:Contributions/161_Mountain Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:Raritan_Morning Special:Contributions/Raritan_Morning Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:He_called_me_with_jack_high Special:Contributions/He_called_me_with_jack_high Log(s) Went downhill arguing with Jimbo about his knowledge of horseradish User:Morrell_Maddie Special:Contributions/Morrell_Maddie Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:Onlytooth Special:Contributions/Onlytooth Log(s) Committed wiki-suicide User:Buchanan's_Navy_Sec Special:Contributions/Buchanan's_Navy_Sec Log(s) Created by me, used by Jon Awbrey User:Shatner's_First_Wife Special:Contributions/Shatner's_First_Wife Log(s) Username block by KrakatoaKatie User:Overstay Special:Contributions/Overstay Log(s) Created by me, used by Jon Awbrey User:Idaho_Low_Point Special:Contributions/Idaho_Low_Point Log(s) Another "guess the password" account User:MO_top_peak Special:Contributions/MO_top_peak Log(s) Another "guess the password" account -- Blocking admin quit Wikipedia three months later User:Largest_Jovian_Orbiter Special:Contributions/Largest_Jovian_Orbiter Log(s) Another "guess the password" account User:John_Russ_Finley Special:Contributions/John_Russ_Finley Log(s) Block reason: "Disruption" -- despite many beneficial accomplishments User:WikiGnosis Special:Contributions/WikiGnosis Log(s) Systematic failures on Wikipedia's side of the ball, such as this blockable edit User:Triangle_Mensch Special:Contributions/Triangle_Mensch Log(s) User:Frothy_Sloth Special:Contributions/Frothy_Sloth Log(s) User:Wit-o-pedia Special:Contributions/Wit-o-pedia Log(s) Performance art account (see Contributions) User:HappilyBrush Special:Contributions/HappilyBrush Log(s) Not proxying, as it was actually me User:You_Know_the_Truth_Will_Out Special:Contributions/You_Know_the_Truth_Will_Out Log(s) Blocked for being either "meat" or "sock" User:Rod_Hull_Knows_Trolling Special:Contributions/Rod_Hull_Knows_Trolling Log(s) Dutifully blocked by Rodhullandemu User:UNC_Cheated_2009 Special:Contributions/UNC_Cheated_2009 Log(s) Blocked and talk page blocked User:Wet_Floor_Sign Special:Contributions/Wet_Floor_Sign Log(s) Committed wiki-suicide User:Kohszilla Special:Contributions/Kohszilla Log(s) Committed wiki-suicide User:East_Bradford Special:Contributions/East_Bradford Log(s) Outstanding example of how bad content is preferred to a banned editor's good work User:Be_Excited_About_Reading Special:Contributions/Be_Excited_About_Reading Log(s) Created by Jon Awbrey, used by me User:72.94.165.206 Special:Contributions/72.94.165.206 Log(s) User:Dennab_Resu Special:Contributions/Dennab_Resu Log(s) Blocked by Swatjester as a "suspected" sockpuppet - spell the user name backwards! User:ZD_Netman Special:Contributions/ZD_Netman Log(s) Blocked by Krimpet as a "vandalism-only" account, incredible WP:POINT made on Electric knife article User:SqweekBocks Special:Contributions/SqweekBocks Log(s) Name too similar to another user User:72.94.158.49 Special:Contributions/72.94.158.49 Log(s) Received one-month block User:Enjoyexist Special:Contributions/Enjoyexist Log(s) Created by Jon Awbrey, used by me User:Zibiki_Wym Special:Contributions/Zibiki_Wym Log(s) The famous account opened after Jimmy Wales unblocked me, but as JzG says, "Banned means banned" User:Furniture_1Z Special:Contributions/Furniture_1Z Log(s) NOT BLOCKED -- despite perpetrating an extremely funny vandalistic edit User:BeigeBoy Special:Contributions/BeigeBoy Log(s) Misattributed to CBOrgatrope, by Morven User:Dutch_Apex Special:Contributions/Dutch_Apex Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Krimpet User:High_Atop_Ceylon Special:Contributions/High_Atop_Ceylon Log(s) Misattributed to Jon Awbrey, by Krimpet User:I_Love_the_Sasquatch Special:Contributions/I_Love_the_Sasquatch Log(s) My friend Alison caught me at the Orlando airport User:Gary_the_Banana Special:Contributions/Gary_the_Banana Log(s) My friend Alison caught me at the Orlando airport User:Man_On_The_Scene Special:Contributions/Man_On_The_Scene Log(s) Blocked by Crum375, an admin himself blocked four times User:Living_in_Envy Special:Contributions/Living_in_Envy Log(s) Odd, a non-checkuser called for checkuser evidence and apparently got it User:SHeEpIsHlY_i_NaP Special:Contributions/SHeEpIsHlY_i_NaP Log(s) Tough to spell, but Daniel figured it out User:CitationMonger Special:Contributions/CitationMonger Log(s) Another Krimpet bust User:Lowell_don't_get_lunch_we'll_order_pizza Special:Contributions/Lowell_don't_get_lunch_we'll_order_pizza Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:Eight_Oh-Six Special:Contributions/Eight_Oh-Six Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:Watchlist_access_account Special:Contributions/Watchlist_access_account Log(s) Account blocked, then prohibited from e-mailing others, too User:ElkJaw_MusicBoss Special:Contributions/ElkJaw_MusicBoss Log(s) Clever anagram User:MusselJab_Sic_Wok Special:Contributions/MusselJab_Sic_Wok Log(s) Clever anagram User:SilkCow_JamBuses Special:Contributions/SilkCow_JamBuses Log(s) Clever anagram User:Arise_Sir_Loin_of_Beef Special:Contributions/Arise_Sir_Loin_of_Beef Log(s) Sarcasticidealist's favorite, made possible my 2008 WMF Board run User:El_Removidor Special:Contributions/El_Removidor Log(s) NOT BLOCKED User:No_Indexer Special:Contributions/No_Indexer Log(s) Blocked by MBisanz, then re-blocked by FT2 User:Fawn_Lake Special:Contributions/Fawn_Lake Log(s) "Either Kohs or someone impersonating Kohs, either way." User:Stoodwiped Special:Contributions/Stoodwiped Log(s) Ryulong determined as "Vandalism-only", even though none of its eight edits were vandalism User:COI_analyst Special:Contributions/COI_analyst Log(s) Five-year block changed (a year-and-a-half later) to an indefinite block User:Lord_on_Canary Special:Contributions/Lord_on_Canary Log(s) NOT BLOCKED, but nearly so User:Plausible_argument Special:Contributions/Plausible_argument Log(s) Blocked by Jayjg, who disappeared about two weeks later [[User:]] Special:Contributions/ [ Log(s)] [[User:]] Special:Contributions/ [ Log(s)] Some accounts that are not mine, but are/were thought to be mine, or associated with me: ACCOUNT CONTRIBS BLOCK LOG Comments User:Ray_Regan Special:Contributions/Ray_Regan Log(s) An incorrect block attribution by User:JzG User:On_behalf_of_Gregory_Kohs Special:Contributions/On_behalf_of_Gregory_Kohs Log(s) Not my account, but it was acting on behalf of a public request I made elsewhere User:Andman8 Special:Contributions/Andman8 Log(s) This is a young fellow named Garrett who enjoyed Centiare/MyWikiBiz for a time, and that was apparently enough to bring him under suspicion User:Tortsarebad Special:Contributions/Tortsarebad Log(s) Account incorrectly accused of being me, by David Shankbone User:LaLaBand Special:Contributions/LaLaBand Log(s) Account incorrectly accused of being me, by David Shankbone [[User:]] Special:Contributions/ [ Log(s)] [[User:]] Special:Contributions/ [ Log(s)] [[User:]] Special:Contributions/ [ Log(s)]

Thekohser_XIV

Is this one yours? [2] 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad link. Oversighted? Or, is this a mildly funny joke? -- Thekohser 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Thekohser XIV link works for me. It was not a joke, but if it was a joke, it would certainly not be considered even mildly funny even if you had the worst ever case of the giggles. 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk)

Okay, it's working for me now. Amazing how the mind fails with middle age. I had forgotten about that one, but at least now firmly recall my "dispute" over the sovereignty of the British Virgin Islands. It shall be added to my list (which is probably only about 40% complete yet). -- Thekohser 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone thinks I'm unblocked

Somebody thinks that I am unblocked (according to their edit summary), and they have altered my User page. I remain blocked, though, so could someone please restore my User page to the "ugly" version? Or, unblock me. -- Thekohser 01:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget...

...Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk · contribs); I have a special fondness for that one.

(Also, a premature welcome back. I hope everything works out well.)

Oops. I must have put my 2008 WMF Board of Trustees candidacy out of my mind! Thanks. I've added it. -- Thekohser 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I love that username! Viridae^Talk 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a tribute, of course, to a Bugs Bunny classic from 1949, Rabbit Hood, where merely by donning a velvet robe and scepter, Bugs is able to not only fool the Sheriff of Nottingham that the rabbit is the king, but bash the mean and intolerant sheriff over the head several times with aforementioned scepter (or, is it a mace?). Hilarious. -- Thekohser 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Its been a long time, but I think you are experienced enough I don't need to slap {{User:MBisanz/Welcome}} here. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Did you get banned from Yahoo! Answers?

BTW I've joined Wikipedia now, lemme see what I can do here.. Anon158 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You said in December one can earn money here, so yeah?

Forgiveness is useful

Perhaps at some point people will be able to be paid to create articles in their user space that can be looked at by others and added to the encyclopedia in whole or in part according to non-paid editors' editorial judgements. Like I suggested to you when you first showed up at wikipedia. Changing policy at Wikipedia is like changing the direction of an oil tanker at sea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like changing the direction of an oil tanker in the middle of a wheat field. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

*de-lurk* - hey, welcome back, Greg!! ^_^ - (your friend) Alison ^❤ 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Special Announcement Due to generous donations by several large corporations, Wikipedia can now afford to pay editors. All editors with over 1000 edits are eligible to apply. For details on how to register for the payroll, CLICK HERE.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh gawd, you are back !!..so its official now..Jimbo has totally lost it ..and yeah Welcome Back !! ...--Warpath (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your input

Hi Greg, and welcome back. The decision regarding your return has caused a stir (as you've probably noticed) and there's a discussion at the banning policy talk page. Let's do our best to come together and make lemonade from these lemons. Have posted a suggestion that might make the return process saner and less stressful for everyone. As a recently returned user, your input would probably carry insights that I can only guess at. Does this sound fair? Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#A_suggestion. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to make a spelling correction to two pokemon articles before you make one comment or you risk the dreaded ban hammer. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

an offer for you to email me your password, and allow me to complete a few hundred 'huggle' type edits would, of course, be wholly inappropriate, and likely to result in the re-activation of your ban. I'll add a pleasant 'g'day' to the chorus of welcome backs though :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the advocacy, please.

Hello.

Please refrain from the commentary in edit summaries. Things like this are unacceptable (and hopelessly misleading at best, unless you mean that an article whose entire contents is "poop" is an "awesome article"?). — Coren ^(talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Greg on that one. It's frankly embarrassing if it was really the case that we didn't have an article on Job sharing but managed to spare 8kb for Color Climax Corporation. – iridescent 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My point isn't that the article wasn't needed or useful (it is), but that the comment makes it appear that this article was created despite having been deleted four times (and, seemingly, facing opposition). "Awesome article that has been deleted four times before" it was not; and naming one of deleting admins was out of place.

That kind of commentary is not what the edit summaries are for, especially when outright misleading or false. — Coren ^(talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Coren, you are right about what is optimum. But we are all imperfect. Give people space to be less than perfect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt that my article was, indeed, "awesome". I also found it interesting that previous attempts to craft any article on the important subject matter were deleted -- not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. Without the admin bit, I did not have access to the deleted articles, so my reference to "awesomeness" could only reasonably be associated with the content of my own article. I mentioned "Wizardman" simply because I thought it was kind of cool that the first article I wrote upon my return had once been deleted by a very famous admin (after all, Wizardman is on the Arbitration Committee and he was mentioned by Stephen Colbert on national television)! Clearly, I was exuberant on my very first addition back to the compendium of knowledge here, and my edit summary got a bit carried away. Apologies for that. I hope that the edit summary doesn't cloud the legacy of the article itself. -- Thekohser 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the deleted versions were:

1. Spam for a recruitment agency;
2. A list of "Simple but basic steps to reach successfully to your career job!";
3. "Poop" vandalism;
4. A redirect to Employment.

We're not talking about stifling the next Milton in his cradle with these deletions. – iridescent 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why not one of the deleting admins took it upon themselves to craft even a stubby embryo of an authentic article about job sharing? I mean, even a quick Google search would suggest hundreds of thousands of hits on the phrase, thirty times more frequency than a similar search for the word "Mzoli's", which survived a noteworthy deletion attempt. Also, "job sharing" was listed as a requested article since November 21, 2006. Certainly, it must be easier to craft a stubby stub than to get an admin to look at and delete inappropriate content on four separate occasions, is it not? -- Thekohser 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Harder than it sounds, as it's quite a nebulous concept which means different things in different countries, so shouldn't be a ten-minute "job sharing means sharing a job" definition. In an ideal world, yes, someone would create a stub – but when you're trawling through a mess like this for the third time that day, it's impossible to stop and rewrite everything. As you may have heard mentioned once or twice, when it comes to blatant advertising, standard practice is to delete it if there's nothing salvageable. – iridescent 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought about how frequently and how much time admins have to spend deleting articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia. I wonder if something like "flagged revisions" would free up more time for admins to help writing requested articles and improving existing articles, rather than slogging through a pile of non-vetted garbage needing deletion? Hmm... It almost seems like there's a heaping load of non-encyclopedia-building work for admins to do, almost by design. That's curious... -- Thekohser 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser, I like your sense of humor. Please note that you, me, Jimbo and others all support "flagged revisions". Think of it like the effort to create a decent health care system in America. There is no dictator to make it all happen. The process is by design made hard. This year has seen a successful conclusion to the years old effort to improve the legal copyright status of Wikimedia material. I fully believe it will also see flagged revisions made available in the English language Wikipedia. These things take time. Your humor might be helpful in attaining that. I don't know. I do know that your intelligence will be helpful, even if I disagree with you on your assessment of how helpful Jimbo is. We need more leadership, not less, and your help in providing leadership will be useful. Neither you nor Jimbo has been flawless in past exercises in leadership. I, on the other hand ...... WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess... FlaWASless? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of accounts

Greg, as I understand it you were attempting to list all your accounts as part of your deal to get back in good standing. FYI, you seem to have missed one User:Plausible argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that one. -- Thekohser 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the greatest idea to use my reminder as an apparent attempt to take a swipe at Jayjg. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How is providing a modestly interesting bit of factual meta-data "taking a swipe"? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that one JoshuaZ. Where is this swipe? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To save Greg using up one of his precious 2:1 quota answering, I think JoshuaZ means An account blocked by Jayjg, weeks before his disappearance from Wikipedia in the edit summary. If that's a "swipe", I'm a turnip; it looks to me like a straightforward "Jayjg blocked it but then retired so won't be able to answer questions as to why it was blocked". Not everything is a personal attack. – iridescent 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(adding) Actually John, while you're here can you wearing your Arbcom hat clarify whether Greg replying to questions counts towards his quota? It seems pointless for all concerned if he's not permitted to answer questions because he hasn't made two mainspace edits that day, as well as potentially annoying people ("I asked him this question, but he just carried on making mainspace edits and didn't answer!"). – iridescent 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to have replies on his own talk page omitted from the counts, but amendments need to be obtained via the amendment page. I think it would be more successful to request the amendment after a month of the current arrangement working. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to en.wikipedia

Dear Thekohser, welcome back to the English-language Wikipedia. I expect you to contribute positively to the English-language Wikipedia. Good luck! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the point

[3] I didn't realize it was incorrect; I speak it that way. Sometimes people point out my folksy expressions or my inability to correctly pronounce words from romance languages. I usually explain that I didn't go to a prestigious college. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a poll on the Internet that put "beside" as preferred by about 55% of respondents, and "besides" by about 45%, which horrified me in the way that "irregardless" does. Meanwhile, I've always been fascinated by this study, so I'm of course intrigued to learn if this "besides the point" thing is regional in some way. Or, "folksy". I'm going to copy this and continue discussion "over there", because I'm not sure if my commenting here takes away from my 2:1 provisional restriction on non-Article-space editing. -- Thekohser 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't mean to distract you. No reply here necessary. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

disclosure of undetected paid content

In regards to your statement at the paid-editing RFC, I am wondering whether you are willing to disclose your paid content to someone who can then speak about the appropriateness of your edits to those articles. A rather simplistic deduction is that you don't disclose your paid content because the community may not agree with your assessment regarding appropriateness, but of course there are business contracts/confidentiality and often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour to take into account, so I don't blame you for keeping a tight lip about them.

To be honest, I am not confident that you have supplied a complete list of socks, as I suspect that some of the paid content was done by socks or meat-puppets which you have not disclosed, for the same reasons you don't want to openly mention the undetected paid content.

To maintain confidentiality, the reviewer would need to be bound to not edit any of the articles, and recuse from anything to do with the undisclosed socks. It would probably be better to select someone who is predominately a content editor, such as a FA reviewer, so that the community trusts their word on the appropriateness of your paid content.

Also, could you or others provide a list of any detected or disclosed paid content? This would give the peanut gallery some examples to inspect, so that we can make inferences about the undisclosed paid content. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Revealing any "meat-puppets" (as you call them; I prefer the term "unpaid editors in good standing") was initially requested by you one of your colleagues via e-mail, but I responded clearly that I "can't even begin to inform the ArbCom about the identities of these individuals". The terms of the ArbCom unblock issued on this page likewise did not include any mention of meat-puppets.

Of course, the reason I choose not to disclose my paid editing is the "often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour" that you speak of. The fiasco surrounding the article Arch Coal once and forever decided that for me. Jimmy Wales deleted this, called it "PR puffery" and "corporate spam", blocked me, then savaged my User page.

I've given you Arch Coal and National Fuel Gas, there is also Zale Corporation and, more recently, Job sharing. While not paid content, these articles owe their provenance to approximately the same levels of quality and research that I put into my paid content. Why don't you have a formal review and discussion of these four articles before we consider any further disclosures? A couple of my known "discovered" paid content articles were at the very, very beginning of my paid editing career. They don't reflect the talent and effort I later achieved. They were compiled for friends, and no payment actually transacted, because the work was contested and decimated relatively quickly and, perhaps, it was sub-standard. These included Norman Technologies and The Family & Workplace Connection (deleted as "corporate spam" by Jimmy Wales). I'd especially like a public review of that latter one. Was it "spam"? Was it worthy of deletion?

I've just looked at six surviving past articles that I authored from scratch in exchange for payment. One recently received a "POV" template -- I believe because the Wikipedian who added it felt that the article was being too critical of the subject company! And another has an "orphan" template, even though two other Wikipedia main space articles link to it. Could we perhaps compare six randomly-selected original articles about businesses and living professionals that were authored by the same editor, but then not ever "improved" later by that editor (to simulate my being banned from English Wikipedia), and determine how many (if any) of them receive similar "warning" templates?

In the meantime, I will be considering if there are any trusted admins who could be held to a confidential review of my paid editing work. Is there a list of Featured Article reviewers somewhere? -- Thekohser 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go down this route but don't trust Arbcom, you can mail me in private (you have my email address). I'm a reasonably regular FA reviewer and author of 9 FAs, and AFAIK aside from a single reversion on Ikea I've never had any mainspace dealings with you, and unless any of your articles are on female pioneers of the Old West, obscure 70s New York bands or 19th century English engineering, there's not going to be any COI issue. I presume most of Arbcom know me enough to trust that I will pull you up if there's anything truly inappropriate, and you know well enough that I won't cause you hassle unless there's a good reason. If you want someone else who's familiar with the FA guidelines etc, and definitely not an arbcom stooge but still trusted by them, you could try Malleus Fatuorum or LaraLove/Jennavecia, both of whom I assume you know from WR. There's a list of FA writers at WP:WBFAN; while not a list of reviewers, there's enough crossover that you can assume anyone on the list will be familiar with WP policies. – iridescent 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to look over the content in question and speak to it's validity as well, Greg, and in particular adherence to my personal Big Three, N/NPOV/BLP. rootology (C)(T) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As with the above, and as Iridescent recommended, I would also be willing to review Greg's work. I've done hundreds of GA reviews. written a few of them and also have featured content. My current focus, as most are aware, is BLP issues, but I believe the community could trust me to give a fair assessment of purchased content as well. لennavecia 03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How would we go about a public review of the disclosed articles I've mentioned above? Could some nice admin restore the Family & Workplace article to a subpage in my User space? I guess a series of open, mini-RfC's on the Talk pages of the articles would work? Let's face it... if that content is found to be horrid, we can all assume the undisclosed paid content is equally horrid, at best, and there would be no incentive for me to disclose. If the disclosed examples are found to be average or better, then I may have some incentive to further prove myself via additional disclosure. --Thekohser 20:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Restored, complete with history, at User:Thekohser/The Family & Workplace Connection. – iridescent 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• If Thekohser has revealed all of his sock puppets then the articles should be easy to find. It's a relatively trivial, though tedious, matter to see what articles the accounts have created.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, you don't seem to understand the process. While I've authored a good deal of GFDL content in exchange for payment, the vast majority of it was published on Wikipedia by other, non-paid editors in good standing. That was the "Jimbo Concordat". See the history of the articles Arch Coal or National Fuel Gas for non-paid examples, which approximate how the paid articles were likewise published by unpaid contributors. -- Thekohser 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. So are you saying that the new articles added to Wikipedia which you wrote came from publicly accessible pages on your own website? Regarding your examples, both articles appropriately list the source in the edit summaries.[4][5] If text has been copied from someplace else it should be attributed, even if the material is public domain. Aside from anything else, it's a plagiarism issue. But it's also an issue of GFDL compliance. MyWikiBiz content apparently is GFDL, meaning that a link back to the author list must be included. Could you go over the list of articles which form MyWikiBiz and make sure that the source is linked somewhere, either in an edit summary, the talk page, or the article itself?   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks. If you want to worry about GFDL compliance, tell me what you're doing about the disgraceful violation of the GFDL on January 2, 2008. Otherwise, I'm not concerned about a violation of GFDL compliance on content that I created, which was copied and re-published elsewhere by someone I trusted had the content's best interest at heart. Besides, I took down the old "incubator" pages of MyWikiBiz, long ago, before they were overwritten by the Centiare.com directory pages. I couldn't reproduce them now, even if I wanted to. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarized material that violates copyright licenses are in appropriate and violate project policies and guidelines. If anyone is adding such material they are disrupting the project. I had thought you were saying you were putting the interests of Wikipedia first. In this matter you appear to be putting your commercial interest ahead of Wikipedia's, presumably out of fear that the improperly copied material will be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, Will. Is this your response to what happened on January 2, 2008? The evidence was very clear as to the admin who was violating copyright licenses and project policies and guidelines against plagiarism, as well as (most egregiously) cover-up of the affront. As for my fear, my only fear is that my properly copied material will be improperly deleted. -- Thekohser 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened on January 2. However any material that has been copied here in violation of GFDL was not copied properly and should be deleted wherever found. Wikipedia maintains high standards when it comes to re-using the intellectual property. If you are concerned about it being deleted then the best thing would be to make sure that the GFDL has been followed and that the authors of the material are credited.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are either unwilling or incapable of figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008 (which I conveniently linked for you, above), then I'm not sure why I'm even attempting to engage you in conversation. As the author of the paid content, if I am satisfied with how the letter of its licensing was or was not followed, that is the end of the dispute. Neither Wikipedia nor Will Beback own the content, nor do you hold sway over whether the attribution needs of the author have been satisfied or not. The author determines this, and the author is satisfied with how the content was published in Wikipedia. The community also seems satisfied, since none of the articles that were paid for were deleted, and deletion would be the ultimate mark of dissatisfaction. Now, seriously, I have nothing further to discuss with you, unless you need assistance in figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008, which I assure you, made both the original author of the content and several admins in good standing here extremely dissatisfied. If you do not wish to discuss the January 2nd incident, then you are welcome to set off from my Talk page and begin your quest to find the half-dozen or more articles I wrote for payment that were potentially not attributed perfectly according to your interpretation of the GFDL. (Note -- what would you say if the content appeared with the following attribution: "GFDL content copied from another site, SHA-1 hash code: de9f2c7f d27e1b3a fad3e85a 0bd17d9b 100db4b3"? That might very well satisfy the original author, who wishes to remain anonymous, yes? It may not satisfy your urge for discovery, but that's not yours to demand of the author, is it?) -- Thekohser 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be cryptic. I'm not sure how the Jan 2 Arch Coal log is relevant- I don't see any mention of GFDL or plagiarism issues. I'm no expert on GFDL, and perhaps we should seek one to see what's sufficient to meet its requirements. I doubt that saying "I release all the material I wrote, but I can't tell you that is" would be useful, but maybe I'm wrong. The issue of how to comply with GFDL material copied from websites that have been taken down may need to be settled too.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL or compatible material that was brought in, but the original source changed/vanished has already I believe been settled from the Foundation perspective over on Commons, where it comes up often on flickr.com images. People free them under a CC license, but then change licensing later, or pull down their Flickr account. The material, once released and reused, stays under the original license. Like, if I release a song under CC, post it online, then take it down a year later--if Jay-Z or someone samples it and makes $1,000,000 from my work, I have no recourse, so long as he follows my previous licensing. As long as we stick to the original licensing, we're fine.

As for your "own" content, theres nothing to settle, really. For example, I make an image of some sort, and upload it here. I can even say it's a derivative of my own work, or any other 'sticky' thing, and I'm fine, nothing else is needed. That actually came up on Commons with me as well, where I labeled a photograph of a seagull's face as a crop, and someone made a fuss over it, even though it was a crop of my own original photograph that I took and had on my PC--they wanted to see the original. I obliged, but I was under no obligation to do that.

Last, for that prior event, I think Greg was trying to point out that for any of us to go after, or imply we'd go after him, for GFDL licensing when he's been ardent on doing that right, is silly. Basically, JzG very inappropriately reposted Arch Coal but without Greg's work on it, hence Jimmy restoring the final 2 revisions later. It was silly, and pointless, and bad faith to not repost Greg's content. Looking back I'm actually boggled it was allowed to go on so long. Even the most banned user of all time, hypothetically, has full claim to GFDL rights, and no one can take that away. rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how that applies to the situation of improperly copied material which has no required link to the author(s). Thekohser apparently knows the names of these articles, which apparently he wrote and caused to be uploaded to Wikipedia without proper attribution. It'd be great if he'd be proactive about fixing the problem rather than making bad faith comments. I'm not sure why he's concerned about the articles being deleted. Wikipedia has a robust system for evaluating which articles should be kept and which deleted, and at least several of his articles have been kept. Presumably he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther the articles stay or go. I just don't see the problem and why he needs to keep his contributions secret and avoid scrutiny.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being proactive about fixing the problem because there's no problem to fix. The problem would arise from a dissatisfied author of original content. I assure you the author is not dissatisfied. Ergo, no problem. What is a problem is how Wikipedia demonstrated to me the manner in which it handles deliberate plagiarism and cover-up by an administrator. That's a problem about 16 or 17 times larger than the so-called problem you're worked up over, Will. Your indifference to the larger problem, coupled with your very statement that "he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther (sic) the articles stay or go", show that you reside on an entirely different plane of business ethics than I do. -- Thekohser 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't spend much time in the plane of buseinss ethics involved in secretly planting articles in Wikipedia. I'm more concerned about Wikipedia policies and standards then in making sure that someone's bcontract for promotional services is fulfilled. I'm not sure I understand your issue with what happened on Jan 2. You seem to be saying that you're upset because your authorship information was removed, but you also seem to be saying that you insist on having your authorship information left off of countless, unknown other articles you wrote. Do I have that right?   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say, "Buseinss is buseinss." You are disparaging me by describing my encyclopedic content creation as "promotional". It was "informational". You are misinformed about my business process, because the content placement was not done "secretly". Multiple non-paid parties knew exactly of the content and its publication. That you were not privy to this communication doesn't make it "secret", it makes it "private" -- much like the "private" e-mail lists that Wikia hosted in order to facilitate the wiki-stalking of suspicious Wikipedia editors. That you were not a party to these private communications, Will, does not entitle you to inclusion on them, no matter how badly it makes you feel. As for the GFDL, I decided that having my rights under the terms of the GFDL temporarily waived was preferable to having my informative, encyclopedic content shit upon by people seeking revenge. Violations of the terms of the GFDL are the responsibility of the rights-holder to bring restorative action. If you think otherwise, I invite you to bring a legal class action on behalf of all the readers and editors of Wikipedia, that I have violated their right to hold sway over my personal wishes for attribution of my content. Neither Wikipedia, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor Will Beback hold the authorship rights to the paid articles I created. Therefore, the only restorative action that will ever happen is if I choose to pursue the non-paid parties who published my works without proper attribution. I will personally let you know if and when that day comes. -- Thekohser 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Outdent. Will, this is getting confusing. If Greg is the original author of any version of the content at the moment it hit Wikipedia, including the version he posted to Wikipedia, why should he have to attribute it elsewhere? He's the author. If I write an article on my own private website, GFDL posted at the time, and then just copy/paste it here, that's my right. I don't have to say, "Originally posted at xyz," since I'm the originator. rootology (C)(T) 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, TheKohser didn't post any of the content to WP, except for the couple of articles he's listed. Other editors did so. Those other editors had the responsibility to maintain the authorship information, per GFDL, and an intellectual responsibility to identify the author to avoid plagiarism. Those articles have all been copied improperly and the only ones who can really fix them are TheKohser, because he knows which articles they are, and the unknown editors who uploaded them for him.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL: 4. MODIFICATIONS,

B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

In your example Greg would publish the document on the GFDL compliant website and then Greg would copy and paste that same document into Wikipedia. At the point that he adds the document to Wikipedia, he is listing all it's principle authors (the one and only principle author, him) and is GFDL compliant. However, in the MyWikiBiz process that's described [6] Greg creates the document and publishes it on his website and then someone else (a Wikipedia editor) copies it into Wikipedia. At the point that they copy it into Wikipedia they have broken the GFDL because they have not listed either five or all of the principle authors. The question was actually asked at the time ("How will the author attribution and grant of license work?" [7]) but I can't see where it was answered; it's likely that it's already been considered and answered somewhere though. In any case, if Greg (and all subsequent authors while it was on his site) released the Wikipedia editor that added the article to Wikipedia from the requirements of the GFDL then the point seems to be mute. Ha! (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies, notability is an issue. Most of the mentions I can find quickly are quite trivial, but I havent looked through the results for "The Norman Group"; feel free to send me any in-depth sources via email and I'll be happy to take it to WP:DRV. p.s. Donald R. Smith might be notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In hindsight, notability was indeed an issue. I don't think it was a "slam dunk" for deletion, but it was admittedly a borderline case. I know I have no interest in re-working toward an encyclopedic inclusion of Norman Tech into Wikipedia. I'd rather see that every S&P 500 company has an article first. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I count only eight redlinks on List of S&P 500 companies; is that list correct, and only 8 articles remaining to be created? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback and new articles

Will, you seem to have an urge to protect the GFDL sanctity of new articles in Wikipedia. I have created two new articles in just the past few days. I have looked through several thousand of your most recent contributions to the encyclopedia project, all the way back to April, and I am hard pressed to find a single new page that you've created on Wikipedia that was not a User, Talk, Category, Wikipedia space, redirect, or move exercise, except for this odd page that doesn't conform to any of Wikipedia's standards for article structure. Given this imbalance in article construction between you and me, might I ask you if you are deliberately trolling my Talk page to create an "issue" out of a non-issue? Because even if I am to assume good faith, it would appear to me that you are not expert in article creation, and therefore seem a bit out of place in a discussion of attribution rights. Please point me to four or five of the most recent main space articles you have generated from scratch, and I will happily withdraw my assertions just made. -- Thekohser 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many jobs at Wikipedia. Creating articles, improving them up, deleting inappropriate ones, resolving disputes, etc. Adminsitrators have the self-deprecating subriquet of "janitors" because we often go around cleaning up messes. The situation appears to be that some number of articles were improperly plagiarized from another website without the requirements for GFDL fulfilled. You wrote these articles on that website in exchange for money, and you caused them to be uploaded here. Now you refuse to reveal the identity of those articles because you're afraid that they won't meet Wikipedia standards and will be deleted. That doesn't seem like a good situation. This issue could easily be resolved by releasing the list of the Wikipedia articles you were paid to write.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us a list of the new articles you have recently created, Will. The community appreciates your dedication to this important issue of "improperly plagiarized" content and your undying loyalty to the requirements of the GFDL. Your hard work in the area of LaRouche movement sub-pages is especially exemplary. We now look forward to your review of the plagiarism cited above that took place on January 2, 2008, as well as your participation in the public review of the articles I have provided above, which only Iridescent has taken the time thus far to review (one of the four) and comment. In the meantime, while you are working on these aspects of improving Wikipedia, I will be preparing my list of paid articles for release sometime in the future. -- Thekohser 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify the difference between the plagiarism problem on Jan 2 and the plagiarism committed by the editors who uploaded your writing without attribution? Regarding my work on Wikipedia, it is open to scrutiny. That is the way Wikipedia works. Avoiding scrutiny is inimicable to Wikipedia norms, and is one of the activities prohibited by WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, I don't see how this is so hard for you to grasp. I feel sorry for you. Everybody else here seems to "get it". When JzG opted to come back to the Arch Coal article, while I was blocked/banned, it was FIFTEEN MONTHS after our initial dust-up when the article was created. Off site, at a place called WikBack.com (I think you're familiar with that defunct forum?) you see, I had pointed out that the edit history showed evidence that JzG hadn't actually re-written from scratch the article about Arch Coal. JzG on WikBack boasted that he had written the article "ab initio". As I prepared to show the edit differences that proved he retained elements of my original article, he elected to willfully and deviously use his admin tools to delete from public view the first two edits to "his" article about Arch Coal. It was a reprehensible action. And, after I produced my original text and allowed the WikBack community to see how JzG was lying about his claim that his version took nothing from my version, several Wikipedia administrators called out JzG for his affront to Wikipedia's policies and culture of respect for attribution -- but none would revert his sinister cover-up. I pushed privately to Jimmy Wales that an injustice had been done, and finally after a couple more days of deliberation, Wales restored the original edits, proving to the public that I was the originator of the content that evolved into today's article. This was important to me, Will, because in dozens of places across the Internet, I had showcased the Arch Coal article as an example of the unfair characterization of it as "corporate spam" and "PR puff" by some of Wikipedia's elite.

That's the one hand. Using the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements to right a gross and deliberate injustice that very nearly went unrecognized and still goes formally unreprimanded.

On the other hand, you have my personal decision to, in a few other cases, relax the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements, because I feel the moral high ground belongs to the preservation of good quality encyclopedic content on Wikipedia (as with Arch Coal), in the face of a vengeful mob that has been shown to delete quality content using as weapons terms like "corporate spam" and "PR puffery". My content. My choices.

If you wish to discuss this topic further, Will, I strongly suggest you do so on a sub-page of your own User space, or out in the Wikipedia project space, because I have grown tired, if not frustrated, trying to educate you on the hard line differences between premeditated revenge against a blocked editor and the expedient preservation of one's creative work. -- Thekohser 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. You'll have to excuse me for not having followed your editing career more closely, and so not being in on everything you've done or said here or on Wikback.com, but there's no need to feel sorry for me. I've stayed plenty busy writing and improving content, and dealing with special problems, including serial plagiarists. You've asked to return to this project, a project which does not allow paid editing. I hope your efforts here will further the project towards its own goals. Now that your contributions will all be under your own name I look forward to them.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, your claim that "this project [...] does not allow paid editing" is inaccurate. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, WAS 4.250. "Your" correct with "you're" rebuttal of Will Beback. I note that Will still has not provided links to any main space articles that he has ever created, and I also note that he deals with "serial plagiarists", but I guess "one time in January 2008 plagiarists" do not fall under his jurisdiction. -- Thekohser 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles that I've written can all be found in the contribution lists of my accounts. It's unfortunate that the names of articles created under contract are being kept private, away from the scrutiny of the community. On the other hand, it maybe just as well since paid editing brings the project into disrepute. Regarding plagiarism, if there are any current examples of it in Wikipedia please let me know. Instances that have already been fixed aren't in need of attention unless it's a address on ongoing problem with a user.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, if my paid articles were disclosed, the only thing brought into disrepute would be the illogical obsession against paid editing of factual, encyclopedic content. Until then, "a address on ongoing problem", and keep up the good work. Also, remember -- opinions are like butt holes; everyone has one, and most of them stink. -- Thekohser 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Without endorsing either side in this argument – since quite honestly, I don't really care very much about a single subject in which Will has an interest, and certainly not enough to comment on accuracy – these are the pages to which Will has made the greatest number of changes, and these are all the non-redirect articles Will Beback has created. (The "created" list only includes those created from redlinks, not those where the article replaced an existing redirect.) – iridescent 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, as this is getting a bit heated, and one person being possibly hounded about this is unhelpful and inappropriate. If you have more concerns with Greg's actions or views on GFDL, given this is all under the auspices of Arbcom authority, please take this to somewhere for wider review with a fairly balanced introduction in your posting. If Greg ultimately wrote the content in question, and is releasing it freely, that's our only concern. Rather than pursue Greg over old matters, why not just let him start over? Please take this somewhere wider if there are additional concerns that you think need intervention or use of tools from an uninvolved admin. You and I are both involved here, of course, now, so neither of us should use tools in regards to Greg. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not heated. Nor am I involved just because I've discussed this issue. I don't see any need to administrative action regarding Thekohser. If there are editors who repeatedly plagiarized information and violated GFDL, then they may need to be reminded of the policies and values of this project. But that's not Thekohser, according to his own remarks.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Will Beback, you are in luck, my friend! I have discovered an entire article on Wikipedia that was plagiarized from a GFDL source, but without proper attribution according to the terms of the GFDL license! You will find that the improper plagiarism took place on July 16, 2007. Note, to satisfy the attribution terms of the GFDL, To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. I hope you will spend as much time chastizing the editor who failed the terms of the GFDL when he plagiarized content as you have spent here with me.

undelete userspace?

User:Thekohser/monobook.js and User:MyWikiBiz/monobook.js appear to be the only pieces of your userspace which are still deleted. Do you want those undeleted? Feel free to email your response to an admin to avoid affecting your 2:1 ratio. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they're fine to keep deleted. -- Thekohser 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation

Hello, I was looking a the Jack Pierce page and noticed you want a citation. In every bio that has ever been wrote or documented, Jack has been known to have a stern personality. All who have worked with him know this. The links provide all the information.

Electric Japan (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So, fix it. It should be trivially easy to construct an in-line citation for something so well documented, no? I'm not an expert on Pierce, so I chose not to search for and add one myself. -- Thekohser 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)