User talk:Thekohser

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk to me here, peeps. If you ask me a question here, I'll respond here. If I've asked you a question somewhere, you please respond there. Thanks!

Welcome[edit source]

Welcome!

Hello Thekohser, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! ---- WAS 4.250 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name and role in project[edit source]

Since you seem unsure about being identified on that page by your name, I have changed it accordingly. Change your name there as you see fit. What do you actually want to do for the project? We have no need for public relations that I know of and even if we do, WikiMedia already has people doing that job. Can you create learning resources that would be useful in the ethical management of Wikipedia? Can you facilitate that? Perhaps you can volunteer as a Wikipedia Review liaison? I'm just thinking aloud here. WR has some good resources poorly organized. Perhaps you could help them get those resources into a shape that is more usable. WAS 4.250 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a "Library" subsection under "Learning Resources" on the main page of the project. Perhaps you would like to put together some material that would be appropriate there under the category of examples of successful and unsuccessful management of similar enterprises? WAS 4.250 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just suggesting that I could communicate the availability of this project to a wider audience, in a way that supports and promotes the intent of the resource. I find it strange and a little hurtful that you would frame that desire as "no need for" it. You seem a bit "WP:BITEy" today, WAS. I'm assuming it's not intentional. I can create learning resources that would be useful in the ethical management of Wikipedia, of course. I'm not sure yet whether I have the time to dedicate to that more taxing role than to simply assist with communications and publicity. Let me think about it. -- Thekohser 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I did not mean to bite. I am trying to protect the project from attacks that I knew would come and have started today. Comments made by "human resources" of this project that say things that some can portray as contrary to WikiMedia's Mission and Vision are, shall we say, less than useful. We are using WikiMedia resources and must abide by their priorities and be understandable to them as fitting in with their goals. WAS 4.250 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful that everyone who participates in the Learning Project can carve out a constructive and functional role, and find the most appropriate description of their chosen role. I'm also cool with widening the scope to encompass managerial and media ethics in community organizations in general. The English Wikipedia community is clearly our prime customer, but I would be happy to serve the similar educational needs of Wikinews and other online communities with similar needs. Greg is a good spokesman who maintains a lot of contacts with parties who may be interested in what we are doing here. We need that role, since I'm not very good at it, and WAS doesn't use E-Mail or (as far as I know) post off-Wiki. —Moulton 08:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spreadsheet as evidence for BLP| problems?[edit source]

Greg, I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea at this point to provide a link to this project for use here. I believe that it effectively illustrates quite a few BLP problems and why they need to be address seriously. The Fieryangel 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not release here, where few are reading, when the public release will soon be upon us, and it will be broadcast to mainstream media and to the 100 affected persons. I will take this as a prompt to expedite the final clean-up of the spreadsheet. -- Thekohser 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aid to readers who have come here since July 2008, it is worth noting that The Fieryangel was referencing this study of Wikipedia vandalism. -- Thekohser 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk:Managing vandalism#Where I got lost[edit source]

ping, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good example[edit source]

Thank you for demonstrating your willingness and ability to play well with others. You thereby set a good example for everyone. WAS 4.250 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, WAS, for illustrating Stage 3 of Kohlberg's Ladder. —Moulton 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that Moulton. Was this decision based on ethics, or just common courtesy and mutual respect? More generally: are all decisions made in a social context necessarily made in the ethical mode? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a conscious choice. There is no obligation to consciously strive to emulate Thich Nhat Hanh or the Dalai Lama 24/7 (or even worry about where one is operating in the Kohlberg-Gilligan Plane of Urim v'Thummim). —Moulton 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would like to write a learning resource on The Ethics of Claiming Compliments are Ethically Challanged? Or is there simply a misunderstanding here someplace? WAS 4.250 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible for a either a sycophant or a charlatan to manipulate someone via insincere compliments or disingenuous criticisms. There may well be a best practice on giving authentic feedback in an optimal manner. Probably married couples know this all too well. —Moulton 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--)Are you suggesting that you have scientifically valid evidence for a theory of mind that puts me in one of those categories? If not, I still fail to understand the ethics behind your insult of me. Unless you were just in a bad mood or some such thing. We are after all, all of us human. WAS 4.250 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that our different valuations of pragmatism may be in play here. Interestingly enough, I do believe that Greg is more pragmatic than I am; while you are less (more, shall we say, principle oriented). Well, I find it interesting, anyway. WAS 4.250 08:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense and is "scientific" to do what works. I think ethics and principles are useful for when we don't know what will happen so we need safe guesses. Principles/ethics are often contradictory in the sense that we have things like "Look before you leap" and "He who hesitates is lost". There is an ethical principle that can support any action whatsoever. All you have to do is pick and choose your specific ethical principles. pEOPLE DO THAT ALL THE TIME. wHEN YOU ACTUALLY EVALUATE THE PREDICTABLE END RESULTS AND JUDGE ACCORDING TO THAT; WELL, THE ABILITY TO PICK AND CHOOSE IS MORE LIMITED AS NOW YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE PREDICTED END RESULTS OF ONE'S PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN SIMPLY INSIST THAT THE PRINCIPLES ARE CORRECT AND ONESELF IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS. WAS 4.250 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's OK...[edit source]

Oversight was used on this page, at my request. I had asked that you be consulted first, but that apparently got lost under a pile of paperwork somewhere or another ;-). I meant what I said though: if "they" come here looking to cause you misery, I'll stand by you if you need me. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio introduction[edit source]

Please participate at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio or Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Audio/Transcripts. --JWSchmidt 04:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does participation include a bus ticket to Banville? -- Thekohser 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trolling[edit source]

I'm skeptical about the applicability of any standard definition of trolling in cases such as this. In my experience, the terms "Troll!" and "trolling" are most often used to signal an emotional response being experienced by insecure Wikimedians. In the best cases, actual thought processes are engaged after the emotional response has been triggered. In the worst cases, the thought is aimed at distracting mystified onlookers from the fact that a supposedly mature and responsible authority flipped out and went ballistic. Research in use of the term "trolling" by Wikimedians would be beneficial, but would probably be dismissed as "trolling". --JWSchmidt 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cross-wiki issues" is not a blockable offense, is it?[edit source]

{{Unblock|I believe that the blocking admin is mistaken and has exceeded his remit}}

Furthermore, if unblocked, I will contribute one hour of my time working on Wikiversity content related to either military history or market research. -- Thekohser 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support your unblock, but you have to be much more cautious in your comments. If you write something, read it, then "Show preview", read it again, and if you would be OK to receive such a message yourself, then click the "Save page". Just to tell: Your comment was not absolutely ok last time... You know what I mean... You just make things worse with this kind of behavior. If you will continue like this, you might find yourself reblocked again. This is a warning. But for now I hope some Custodian comes around and unblocks you. --Gbaor 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an unblock will happen without problems. However, I would be willing to allow Thekosher to work on a few projects on his talk page and have someone move them to mainspace. That would give solid evidence that he is here to do more than cause problems. This was the same offer I gave to Moulton and a few others. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the cross-wiki issues you've been involved in? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking, Jtneill. Essentially, the "issue" that has most surrounded me is the issue of paid editing on Wikipedia. In mid-2006, I launched a business called MyWikiBiz (described on Wikipedia). In a fully-disclosed manner, I sought to mimic the transactional paradigm that was already in place on the Wikipedia Reward board. In a short amount of time, Jimmy Wales blocked my Wikipedia account, then called me on the telephone to discuss whether there might be a way forward. He presented a plan where he would publicly endorse (that may not be the best word, perhaps "tolerate" is better) a compromise scenario, where MyWikiBiz would publish GFDL material off-Wikipedia, but that non-paid, "well known and respected" Wikipedians would be allowed to copy material over from off-site onto Wikipedia itself.
I found this to be a clumsy, less-transparent compromise than my original intention to simply edit in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure, on-Wikipedia. But, when you get the co-founder's public endorsement/toleration of "his" model, you go with it.
Well, in short time (about 2 months) the Wikipedia community began to reshape and generate a newer form of the old "WP:VANITY" guideline, and as it became more solidified as a "WP:COI" (conflict of interest) guideline, my interpretation of it was that it would be tolerable for a paid editor to present content on his/her own User sub-page, which could facilitate discussion and then eventual copying into Wikipedia, from Wikipedia, as it were. I knew that when I had asked Wales about this earlier in the game, he had said, "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." So, when it was elevated to guideline status, I e-mailed Wales, to simply confirm that I should remain in place with our earlier concord, and not start doing what the WP:COI seemed to allow.
Wales went ballistic. He indefinitely blocked my account, placed a dire warning to clients against my business on my User page, and he threatened to bad-mouth my personal ethics in any interview where the subject of paid editing came up. He also deleted an article that shouldn't have been deleted, about Arch Coal -- the second-largest coal mining operation in the United States -- which hadn't even been a paid engagement. The article was restored by an admin who had been aggressively confronting me for the previous 4 months, and he restored it in a "new" form that he declared was written "ab initio", even though it was clear that major elements still plagiarized my words and organization. In short, he deliberately tried to take credit himself for an article that I had written, without payment.
This opened up an ugly process of my finding out various ways in which Jimmy Wales was being highly hypocritical about money and Wikipedia and exploitation of Wikipedia. I have become something of a watchdog over the Wikimedia Foundation, which I admit is rather obsessive. But, I was wronged, and even though Wales eventually brought himself to make a not-quite-complete apology to me, he continues to conduct himself privately in interactions with me that I find infuriating, as well as misrepresenting to the public himself and his role with Wikipedia.
I have persisted in helping out on projects where I feel that Wales has not unduly injected himself, such as Meta, Wikiquote, and Wikibooks. However, I've mostly continued my wiki-based work on a new "wiki version" of MyWikiBiz.com, as well as co-founded a Florida non-profit called Internet Review Corporation.
While there were other later "issues" with another Wikipedia admin who deliberately fabricated untruths about my dealing with journalists, and with another Wikipedian who deliberately refused to release an audio file of a Board of Trustees candidate roundtable interview that over 10 people produced and expected for the recording to be released, what I've described above is essentially the "cross-wiki issue" at the heart of the matter. Wales doesn't like me, and I don't like him. He found the model of making money by "exploiting" Wikipedia to be unethical. But, then I ask, what is he doing? He has the "block this user" tool-bit, and I don't. You can draw your own conclusions about who holds the higher moral ground in this personal conflict. -- Thekohser 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is quite a long and involved history - thanks for explaining in a nutshell here - and all new to me. I haven't followed all the links, but am curious where are you currently blocked / allowed on the WMF projects? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is another good question, Jtneill.
Currently blocked In good standing
English Wikipedia (block log) Commons (example of work)
English Wikiversity (block log) English Wikibooks (example of work)
Strategy wiki (block log) English Wikiquote (example of work)
...no others... English Wikisource (example of work)
...no others... Beta Wikiversity (example of work)
...no others... FlaggedRevs Labs (example of work)
...no others... Mediawiki (example of work)
...no others... Meta Wikimedia (example of work)
...no others... Simple English Wikipedia (example of work)
...no others... Species Wikimedia (example of work)
...no others... Usability Wikimedia (example of work)
So, what would you conclude from this? On which Wikimedia Foundation projects has Jimmy Wales been most active over the past 5 days? I would contend that the answer would be English Wikipedia and English Wikiversity, which also constitute 2 of the 3 Wikimedia Foundation projects where I am blocked. Coincidence? The third project where I'm blocked is the Strategy wiki, where I was blocked for proposing very politely a way to transition Jimmy Wales out of the spotlight as a "bad PR" generator. My blocks, it seems, clearly revolve around Jimmy Wales.
Now, I have proposed above that if I am unblocked on English Wikiversity, I will busy myself with various items utterly unrelated to Jimmy Wales and the "breaching experiments" conflagration into which he's injected himself. I continue to wait patiently for my unblock here. (Pssst... If you're just waiting for Jimmy to get exhausted here and go back to Wikipedia before you sneak in the unblock, I understand, and I'm amenable to that plan. Plenty of time.) -- Thekohser 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into some of this history - thanks very much all the links etc. that does make it a lot of easier. There does seem to be a long and complicated history of controversial involvement in WMF projects - with mistakes on both sides? My initial impression is that a decision to block/unblock is not clear cut and I would lean towards community review if you really do want to contribute given that you have been blocked by the founder. Jimbo obviously thought it was clear-cut, so hopefully he can clarify about that. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "cross-wiki issues" is simply a nonsense codeword. Mike Lifeguard used the same language in 2008 to threaten me with blacklisting simply because my user page had a few links on it. The blocking agent should be asked to explain and justify his charge, not require the defendant — Spanish Inquisition style — to make a list of all the things he might have done wrong. Thekohser should be reinstated immediately, with no conditions. Jon Awbrey 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one takes it as true that Wikiversity lack substantial policies in place to govern itself, as has been proposed, I suggest examining Wikipedia:Blocking policy on this, specifically, the section on disruption-only accounts and how that does not apply to this account, the section on the conflict of interest created when a person performs a block in response to feeling personally wronged, the section on notifying the user of the block, which was not performed by the person who put the block into place, the section on attempting to warn/educate the user before blocking, and finally the section stating that blocks are "not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment". Wikipedia believes that "bans issued by the Wikipedia community or by the Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects", so why would an indefinite block of thekohser over a single subjective comment, with no warning or notification, by a conflicted party, based on issues at another wiki, be acceptable? -- Adrignola 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, it has been nearly five full days since I requested an unblock. Could I just get an update on where this review currently stands? I'm not necessarily asking for the "up or down decision", mind you. If it's something as simple as, "We're waiting until out-of-process-Jimbo goes away, and then someone will actually review your past, recent, and potentially future contributions to Wikiversity and the Wikiversity community, and we'll make a decision then," that's just fine with me. I'm not in a big hurry. In fact, the longer my request goes undecided, the more telling it is, I think, to see how timid is the governance here to act when a "grown up" is having a tantrum. By the way, if it's any help, I do have a Bachelor's, Master's, and was C.Phil. in programs in military/diplomatic history and quantitative methods in geography. That work was over 15 years ago, so it is intriguing to see if I could successfully immerse myself once again in a learning community that seems to need assistance. -- Thekohser 14:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Jimbo has been in discussions with PM regarding his recent block. It might be useful to get some input from Jimbo to help assess this situation. Have you been in contact with him? Adambro 14:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo does not respond to e-mails from me any more. Also, you may wish to check with PrivateMusings about these "discussions" he purportedly is having. It is reported that Jimbo has not e-mailed PM for five days. This would seem to indicate a cognitive dissonance in your understanding, though it is nothing to be sorry for. I think the pattern of practice for the user with the "Founder" bit is to leave behind a trail of confusion, thanks to incomplete and misdirected commentary. Consider, indeed, even the spurious claim to be "Founder". "Decline to participate, sorry." Sorry, indeed. -- Thekohser 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave Jimbo a message on his talk page here to seek his views about a possible unblock. Adambro 15:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock was denied. I have removed the template, because it places the page into a unblock denied category, which should be reserved for active blocks. The unblock reason is preserved. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Unblock denied. [Unblock reason] I believe that the blocking admin is mistaken and has exceeded his remit[reply]

[Denial reason] Jimbo has now made his position absolutely clear and I see no overwhelming justification to overturn his decision. You've only ever contributed here sporadically and your comments at Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments were your first edits here in just under a year. Clearly, as you've accepted, you don't like Jimbo, and the impression I get from your edits is that you came here last week with an axe to grind, having seen an opportunity to criticise Jimbo. I would hope that you can recognise that turning up here out of the blue apparently to have another stab at Jimbo wasn't particular helpful, was more likely to inflame the situation than help to resolve it, and does now make your apparent eagerness to contribute here suspicious considering there was nothing stopping you doing that earlier. Adambro 10:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work that needs doing[edit source]

Some areas where I would work:

Here is an example of the work I could perform within Wikiversity. Discussion: Compare Wikiversity's moribund page as it existed before editing by a "banned user", and then after. Which version do you prefer? Which editor would you want working at Wikiversity? Which editor would you want banned from the project? Which editor merits a "global ban"?

As for the proposal that I "work first, then get unblocked"... that seems rather humiliating. My record of content production should speak for itself. I will say this -- upon unblock, I'll have nothing more to add on Wikiversity about the interference of Jimmy Wales here, and that should be sufficient promise that there should not be trouble (unless bad faith individuals elect to come "make" trouble out of nothing). -- Thekohser 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing the Jimbo/Adambro decision[edit source]

Is there a means to formally appeal the strong-armed decision of User:Jimbo Wales and User:Adambro to indefinitely block this particular account from Wikiversity? -- Thekohser 14:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the discussion would be on WV:CR (which of course you can't edit at the moment), but the rules seem to have been suspended. --SB_Johnny talk 14:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'd stand a better chance if I just requested inclusion in Wikiversity as a "fictional mascot"? -- Thekohser 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps meta:Steward requests/Global? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like your situation amounts to a founder/board level "global block" as opposed to a steward/meta global block so you would need to work through Jimbo Wales and/or the WMF board: [1]. I suspect there must be more to this than meets the eyes of us unfamiliar with the detailed past history and dealings between yourself and Jimmy/the WMF? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comments, I'll add abusing multiple accounts/block evasion to the reasons why I don't think it would be appropriate to unblock Thekohser. Adambro 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be particularly imprudent judgment, being that the "abuse" merely resulted in very good content being contributed to Wikiversity. Why do you hate good content, Adambro? Also, the socking only took place after a poor judgment had been rendered, not before. It would be like saying, "It is right and just that we did not allow this Detroit-area dentist with a degree from the University of Michigan with the surname Al-Zahiri on this aircraft, because he later went on to allow a parking meter to expire while parked in front of the courthouse to file a wrongful discrimination claim against the airline!" This may be a helpful instructional video for you, if you can't understand what I'm saying, Adambro. -- Thekohser 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for grant money[edit source]

Anyone who is interested in investigative research or documenting past abuses in "free culture" organizations (of course, with the objective of learning how to prevent such abuses in the future), is welcome to consider this general notice. -- Thekohser 15:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summaries[edit source]

This edit contained an inappropriate edit summary. Do not accuse people of racist attitudes when you clearly have no source for such. You stated that his action would be analogous to a racist action, then labeled him as such. This is inappropriate. If you do it again, I will reblock you with talk page access removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Boss. Do you think anyone else is beginning to understand? -- Thekohser 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete summary[edit source]

Regarding the summary that seems to be appearing here, it is incomplete. SB_Johnny asked to resign his tools on March 23, here, stating that Jimmy Wales' intervention made his participation feel "morally uncomfortable". Also, the summary is lacking in that it doesn't track the case history of my own account -- in good standing here since July 2008 -- being blocked by Jimmy Wales due to "cross-wiki issues", and a request for unblock going rejected based on Jimmy Wales' wish that my accounts suffer a "global block". I would appreciate if someone could update the timeline appropriately, so that a more comprehensive story takes shape. I continue to believe that the "biggest troll" in this affair is waltzing back to San Francisco (or St. Petersburg, or Manhattan) or wherever he resides. -- Thekohser 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "standard offer"[edit source]

If anyone is interested in restoring my account to the Wikiversity community (since it would appear that Jimmy Wales was fabricating his support by the Board; according to board member Samuel Klein, "He was not acting as an agent of the Board nor was there any 'Board authorization of an intervention'."), I have made my "standard offer" for accepting the Wikiversity's restoration of my editing rights. -- Thekohser 17:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Adambro 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material added to user page per request[edit source]

I have added material to User:Thekohser per request of this user, at [2]. The content is the content from [3], as created by the user, which was removed pursuing what I see as an unresolved conflict. I saw no harm in the content, but I left the NOINDEX tag in place to anticipate objections about him promoting his web site. I think it likely that the block of this user is temporary, but I'm not yet prepared to support unblock personally, until I have better assurance that he will avoid unnecessary disruption. But I will say that I would not oppose any administrator restoring his editing rights, if that administrator is satisfied by conditions or assurances. --Abd 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thekohser block settings changed to allow Talk page access[edit source]

I am unable to see any reason to prohibit Talk page access here for this user. Above, under the section 'My "standard offer", Thekohser made an offer seeking unblock. While that offer was, in a sense, improper, and was accompanied by the "standard unblock request nonsense" of "the block was not properly made," it wasn't disruptive, and I believe that we can and should move on. I support the full unblock of this user, disregarding the carrot offered, and providing that appropriate agreements can be made to address any concerns of those presently involved with this community. This beginning will allowing Thekohser the dignity of being allowed to edit his own Talk page.

Thekohser, please be careful with this. Please avoid stirring up old problems. Don't poke the bear, okay? I have my own opinions about your prior history, but they aren't relevant. How we move forward will not depend on me or my opinions, but upon the consensus of this community. Please look to the whole community, and address any concerns with patience and tolerance, I expect it of you. --Abd 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-linked, unblocked.[edit source]

I assume you're going to be watched closely :-). --SB_Johnny talk 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have it any other way. Who doesn't love an audience? -- Thekohser 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :-). As my grandmother used to say when I was a teenager: "be good, and if you can't be good, be careful!" --SB_Johnny talk 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Greg. This whole affair has demonstrated what I already knew: you can be firmly on the side of what will be consensus, and yet it can appear that the cause is hopeless; one would think that consensus would be self-supporting. Not always. Wikiphenomena. Enjoy the pudding that the proof is in.

When the smoke clears, we have work to do, I believe. Meanwhile, please, take it easy! The conditions haven't really changed, you just don't have to self-revert any more! It's still a good idea to self-revert sometimes when proposing some outrageous edit, as it might appear.... with discussion, of course. And if no good reason appears, with the passage of some time, then it's perfectly in order to undo my own self-revert!

Good luck. --Abd 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Let's hope that common sense will prevail on other projects as well. Guido den Broeder 09:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to thank everyone (except the obvious two or three) for your work in overcoming this injustice. I hope that my contributions will continue to show that the only threat I may pose to this project is that dastardly black cloud of... factual information. <eyes spinning> -- Thekohser 14:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a fair world, you wouldn't have to be extra careful. But it's not fair. So please don't push it here, save the sarcasm for Wikipedia Review, okay? Just leave it at thanking, you don't have to mention any others. On behalf of all future users who run into problems, my friend, I thank you for demonstrating a path of return and possible reconciliation that could have much deeper consequences than just your own contributions. --Abd 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCIVILITY !!! INCIVILITY !!! - The obvious two or three 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Accountability?[edit source]

my request to Adambro Greg, if you want this account unblocked, please place an unblock template on the Talk page. A decent reason would be "This is an acknowledged alternate account of Thekohser, now unblocked per community discussion [diff] which discussion included support for unblocking this account as well as the main one, and there was no distinct opposition (i.e., to unblocking Thekohser but leaving this blocked). Please unblock." Be sure to edit as Thekohser and sign it.

The reason I asked Adambro for this was to make it easier to undo the global lock on EA. That lock was placed a few days ago because of the account being a "sock of Thekohser." You apparently started, while the WV unblock process was in motion, a number of other such accounts (if not, let me know! Those could be straw puppets.), but the only account with activity is the WV one. You have not created any user pages or made any edits with the other accounts. So, really, what's involved in the global lock on EA was an attempt to prevent the use of EA on Wikiversity in a process to find local consensus. I've asked the steward to reverse, you know how that goes. May or may not happen. But, meanwhile, it looks bad that EA is blocked on WV, will make it slightly more complicated to get that lock lifted.

(The EA account lock may later be used as "evidence" that you were abusively socking. People don't necessarily look at details. That's why this might be important.)

It's up to you. I'm dropping this unless you request unblock, it's not crucial. If you request, I'll make sure it gets due attention. Please don't raise a fuss, just either make the request or don't. Please do not criticize Adambro. --Abd 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I side with Adambro's thoughts on this. It's not worth it to me to pursue any unblocks on accounts that were intended as only temporary bridges across chasms of injustice. -- Thekohser 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Greg. Simple. --Abd 15:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this?[edit source]

[4]. Bad enough that this was posted anywhere, but why did you move it to the actual Colloquium page? --Abd 22:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Daanschr was making a comment about something that KYPark had written on the Colloquium. So it probably did have some relevance to the Colloquium page, i.e., it was about something written there. But it was pretty inappropriate, like some other discussions that pop up from time to time. If D has some complaint about KYP, it would have been better filed on User talk for KYP.... At least to start. But the comment seems pretty incoherent to me. I looked and couldn't find with the time I gave it what in the world Daanschr was talking about.

In any case, I reverted your changes. I hope you don't mind. I noted that Daanschr, if he wanted the comment to be on the Colloquium page itself, could, of course, revert me.... --Abd 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was just trying to tidy up. I didn't read it very carefully, and I also found it fairly incoherent. I did sense that it was not a discussion ABOUT the Colloquium page, so I thought it best to move it to the Colloquium page. I don't have any problem whatsoever with whatever happens to it henceforth. -- Thekohser 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a statistician[edit source]

Thanks for your message. I think it's best if I give my initial reply by e-mail.--Poetlister 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks.[edit source]

Topic says it all. Thenub314 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you conveniently missed this personal attack while rushing to deal with the one you imagined from me (which itself was a bit of satire, not attack). I guess you favor the drive-by accusation of "sockpuppetry" from a new account with all of two edits to Wikiversity, compared to my 100+ contributing edits here since 2008. Find your moral compass Nub, then get back to me. Thekohser (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling into question a users identity and calling into question a users sanity are two issues on a completely different level. I did not take into consideration anyone's edit counts. Simply what I read. I see you placed it back, and I have rolled it back. Please do not add the "satire" back again. Thenub314 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The follow-up edit did not question any user's sanity, so your roll-back was out of order. Please restore my most recent response, as it is fully appropriate to critique a new user who immediately questions the identity of another user (without having contributed one iota of improvement to our Wikiversity), and hypocritically no less, given that the new user is a frequent contributor to the site he attempts to disparage against the other user. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your correct that a users sanity was no longer called into question. But in order to understand your post, I googled the phrase "define yiffy account" I was lead as a first result to Urban dictionary. The acronym seems to stem from the phrase: "Young Incredibly Fuckable Furry". Not in any way germane to the discussion and in my view a personal attack.
Perhaps this was unintentional as yiff is also the word for the sound of a fox barking. Given the context of the sites you linked to, intentional or not it the remark seemed to suggest something about the user.
My advice to you: do not associate any users here with any type of sexual activity, fetish, etc. that they do associate themselves with here at WV. Doing so in my opinion is a personal attack. Thenub314 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an odd opinion, given that Silver seren is very open and public about his plan: "We furries plan to yiff the world." So, it's okay for a user to "attack" another user, falsely accusing them of sockpuppetry and of harboring an outside agenda, based on an affiliation with a website, to which the accuser himself has contributed hundreds of times? I think I understand, Thenub. Oh, and it's "You're correct" -- a contraction, and "user's" -- a possessive, and I don't know what to make of "it remark". I'll assume English is not your strength. Thekohser (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about my strength in English are indeed correct. As there are other "thenub314"'s out there, I see no particular reason to believe this link has to do with the user here. Not to mention you seemed to have missed the "here at WV" condition above. But that is fine, English is my weak point, and it seems logic is yours. Thenub314 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is quite fine, thank you. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thekohser&oldid=1879034"