User talk:Thekohser/Archive 3

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 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. –  iride scent  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 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 Banning policy. If you have any problems with that, please go to 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. --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 : 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)


 * "As complete as I recall". You forgot one.    Will Beback    talk    01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention User:Feline Who Watches You Masturbate From Above is also his   « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes! Oh, that was a classic one -- a hilarious caper.  I'll add it to my hall of fame. -- Thekohser 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

Some accounts that are not mine, but are/were thought to be mine, or associated with me: