User talk:Thekohser/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Signpost interview request

Greg, I invite you to answer a set of questions for the Wikipedia Signpost about your board candidacy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections/Gregory Kohs. If you choose to do so, please let me know. I also encourage you to respond by 26 July; interviews with all candidates who respond will be publicized in the 27 July issue of the Signpost.

Faithfully, ragesoss (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary at Sonny Lester

Do you really think the bit about the Boca Raton Historical Society is worth mentioning? It's not even clear from the source if he made a live appearance (or, for that matter, if it's even the same guy!) I assumed you were just making a point about Jimbo's selection for a topic. Your Bob Bain stub was just a stunt, was it not?

If you intended that addition to Sonny Lester as a sincere contribution, then I apologize for not writing more in my edit summary. But I still believe it was a piece of trivia. Zagalejo^^^ 02:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

wikia

I agree with you on the Wikia thing. However, I fear, that for obvious reasons that is not going to happen. Triplestop x3 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious reasons" to mean, "cult-like fanaticism" that surrounds the Co-Founder and all his ventures, many of which fail miserably? -- Thekohser 02:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think most links to Wikia can be removed anyways as they fail RS and EL policies. However we will see where this goes. Triplestop x3 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the matter. Triplestop x3 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor

Just unwatch MyWikiBiz and let whatever happens happen. It's not worth getting into quarrels. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. I could just as easily tell you, "Just unwatch Wikipedia and let whatever happens happen. It's not worth getting into quarrels." You're a card, Jonathan! -- Thekohser 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If I quarrel, I do it about things that don't really matter to me, such as What caused the K-152 Nerpa disaster? Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Fixing typos and bad grammar is fine, but sarcastic edit summaries like this and this need to cease. Consider this your final warning from arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

More details on this

A routine review of your edits was carried out on 1 August 2009 by ArbCom. Of your 600 edits since 30 June 2009 (your first day of adding content after your unblock) to date, only 363 have been to article space (371 including deleted edits), therefore failing to meet the 2:1 ratio of article space to other edits.

You pointedly created a BLP article, followed a few hours later by blanking the article with the edit summary "Courtesy deletion and redirect. Musician Bob Bain doesn't deserve to be made vulnerable to nonsense here on Wikipedia, and the article added less to knowledge than the bio source at SpaceAgePop". The article was subsequently speedy deleted.

You have also repeatedly used pointed edit summaries when carrying out wikignoming tasks (examples: "Wikipedia just isn't competant", "Attend this dance, in preparation for MAXDRAMA", "This looks like garbage; however, I'm too lazy to format it into a table without payment opportunity.")

ArbCom is urging you to respect the 2:1 ratio and to avoid repeating any of the above-mentioned problematic edits. Any further occurrence would lead to a re-ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that writing replies on my Talk page did not count against the 2:1 edit ratio, sort of like the "walk" in baseball. Could you recalculate my ratio, if my edits to my own User and User_talk pages are taken out of the formula? Thank you, FayssalF. -- Thekohser 02:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser has made 99 edits to Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk spaces. It looks like his ratio is more than 2:1 if you exclude User and User talk contributions. You can't hold it against him for answering messages on his own talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to be flexible about this. Thekohser's edits to user talk pages included an extensive discussion of the Mywikibiz article on Flowanda's talk page; suggesting to other English Wikipedia editors that they commment on a complaint of Thekohser's about (inappropriate) editing at Metawiki; and suggesting an editor who announced a wikibreak, and who supported positions against paid editing on the relevant RFC, should remove his wikibreak tag. These are examples of why talk page edits are counting as non-article space edits. Risker (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

@Thekohser, if we exclude edits to your own talk page then you are a little below 2:1 at 64¼% (363 / (600 - 35)). However until we amend the probation as I suggested a while back[1], edits to your own talk page are included.

I put you down as someone who would be fixing BLP problems rather than participating in them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would echo Jonathan's comment; responding to comments on his talkpage should not be included in any count, since it is beyond the control of Greg on who posts here and not replying may give rise to complaints (to ArbCom or the Noticeboards) about thekohser being unresponsive to legitimate concerns. Further, it will eventually occur to someone that by posting to Greg's talkpage often enough and eliciting responses they will create such a situation that might result in Greg being rebanned... The limitations in place for Greg were devised to limit the potential for disruption by targeting his contributions toward article space, and not for permitting a means by which the unblock/banning conditions may be gamed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We'll try to revise this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just call me Cassandra. – iridescent 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on your trustee elections

Good luck on your trustee elections! i support what you are triyng to do with regards to greate r exceptance of paid advocacy as welll as your desire to professionalize WIkipedia and make it more accessiple to trained experts and professionals in their field. i hope you succeed in your efforts and I Voted for you so that mayne we can work on redeeming Wikipedia as a project that holds itself to higher encyclopediac standards rathern than just drama. Smith Jones 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comcast picture

Why would you remove the image of the Comcast Center without explanation? I would have just reverted it if it wasn't the second time I did it today. Medvedenko (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the picture is an abstract, artistic rendering of the building using HDR imaging that the Wikipedia "community" has determined to cause more confusion and disorientation among readers than it adds to human knowledge about the building. Please, do not re-add the image to Wikipedia. Feel free to add the image on some other site that does not purport to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge. -- Thekohser 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, Greg is right, this image is not a good one to use as one of very few images in that article. A more representational image is a better choice. Do you have a version of the image that doesn't have the artistic effects added that you can share? People want to know what the building actually looks like. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Change does happen

Thekohser, I'm not terribly active on Wikipedia but we have interacted in the past and shared some concerns. I see you're back, albeit under restrictions. Thought you might like to see that change in some of the areas you have been involved in does happen with time: compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Storage Technology with the DRV for Arch Coal. Best wishes, Martinp (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This account is blocked indefinitely for using it against the spirit of the unban conditions accepted duly before the recent unban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which facet of the spirit of the unban conditions has Greg violated? If there is private correspondence about this then sobeit, but there doesn't seem to be anything that I am aware of. Further, and it isn't made clear on the wording on this page, is there an allowance for an arbitrator to make such a determination individually (like admins are permitted in certain circumstances) or did there need to be a discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You may read the unban conditions (above) and you may check his contribs to get answers to all questions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was probably the sarcastic edit summaries warned about. Here is an example: "(I love Wikipedia with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom.)" Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And reasonable admins won't defend any edit summary that is irrelevant to ActionScript. Web developers and readers would get confused. Do you accept that as an admin? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF: Could you rephrase that? I have no idea what you just said, apologies. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, this was the final warning. I'll leave Fayssal to explain what he said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF is referring to the edit summary used on "ActionScript", which is just one of many. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per John. I chose (randomly, seriously - I've not checked any other one) that specific example to show LHVU why an irrelevant and inappropriate edit summary is not a good idea. If you check that diff, you'd see that an IP followed up with another inappropriate one. Total waste of resources and time with such edit summaries (admin intervention, readers confused, etc...) That is totally contradictory to the spirit of the unban conditions. TheKohser was back to help us; not use edit summaries to disrupt and attack. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If he's cleaning up the articles, what's the harm if he blows off a little steam in the process? Attacking editors in the summaries would be a problem, but he doesn't seem to be doing that. Letting him do this seems to provide a net benefit for the project. (And a COI disclaimer I'd never would have thought I'd have to say: I recently won a $10 from Greg.). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok Joshua :) We then have to override all our policies and guidelines and probably get rid of them just for the sake of letting people correct typos and mislead other editors with totally irrelevant edit summaries (wp:point and all that). All this for the name of "making a user happy" and encourage him to continue on that path. He must then at least tell you when he'd start using appropriate edit summaries. I have a question... you were an admin and you know how would you do in case you find someone using irrelevant ES non-stop. Who would care if you'd block them after 2 warnings? What is different between that would-be user and TheKohser? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure this actually breaks policy. WP:ES isn't policy and even then nothing it says there seems to say you can't do this. I confess that I'm not a perfect expert on policy but I'm not aware of any policy or even guideline that says that edit summaries must be helpful. If they violate CIVIL or NPA that's one thing. But there's no policy WP:NOCRITIZINGWIKIPEDIA, or WP:RANTINGINEDITSUMMARIES or even WP:SARCASM or even WP:WIKIPEDIAIZSERIUSBUZINESS or WP:NOHUMOR. I also don't see anything disruptive in this behavior. If there is an actual policy or guideline he's violating then so be it. If I were an admin today I'd probably ignore it unless I had reason to believe it was doing harm to the project. And I really don't see that right now. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is little relevant here; and I don't believe it should be used to wikilawyer with. This is the story, Joshua. Thekohser was under ArbCom conditional unban -that overrides regular application of a policy; that is the thing which is relevant. He's been warned twice in no less than a month. We've been explicitly crystal clear with him. It should be a slap on the face on the people who assumed total good faith and gave Thekosher a new opportunity.

Now, Thekohser might believe that it was his right to come back. That is not a problem although he believes that some people (the community) banned him unfairly. I'd have opposed his ban indeed. But today is 2009 and he is already editing Wikipedia - he's not banned and he was set editing as he promised to do. So why not act as everybody should be acting? It is clear that the edit summary is not the biggest issue; it is the spirit. If admins cannot make that clear difference then we've got a big problem. I rarely do participate in RfAs but admins should be able to have a good judgment and a minimum of wisdom. Thekohser has shown no sign of keeping with his promise. If he's serious enough, he could be doing great edits as every respected editor does. Now, please don't forget WP:NOT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not happy with his behavior. His direct statement that he intended to creat "MOAR DRAMA" during the "dramaout" really didn't endear me to it. If it were my choice he'd probably be still banned. But banning him for some silliness with his edit summaries that a) don't create disruption and b) don't disrupt policy isn't helpful. The question to ask is will allowing him to edit benefit the encyclopedia? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that sarcastic edit summaries aren't going to substantially alter the answer to that question. Frankly, I don't care if Greg's spirit is completely against the project and he intends to edit just out of spite for the users who don't get along with him. Or if he Greg intends to help edit because he believes that when the encyclopedia reaches a certain number of articles the stars will be right for Cthulhu to rise up out of his watery grave where he sleeps dead but dreaming. The end result needs to be what is best for the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, it's been proven that that is disruptive; there's no need for anyone to use irrelevant editing summaries before an IP comes to leave another irrelevant and inappropriate edit summary before an admin needs to intervene and before an editor clicks to see what's going on coming from their watchlist. This is not what the encyclopedia was made for and if we can accept these kind of actions then we'd be fooling ourselves. I believe it is disruptive and we do block for disruptive actions, let alone a unbanned user under restrictions! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously nonsensical edit summaries don't take up more time on a watchlist than no edit summaries. (Unless one argues that people will waste the time to read the summaries anyways). Would it hurt to have a policy or guideline against this sort of thing in edit summaries? No. Does it make sense to block someone for that by itself? Not really. In any event, given your more compelling argument below in reply to Lar where you lay out the general pattern that this is an element of, I'm not inclined to argue further about this block. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be left for their encyclopedic purpose. I'd seriously have no single problem at all having those edit summaries posted at my talk page. I won't care if I'd receive 100 a day, seriously. Articles should be respected; they are owned by many and co-editors and readers should also be respected! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I confess I'm not very keen on the edit summary usage, it's clearly sarcastic rather than a heartfelt sentiment, but it seems rather a picayune matter to block indef over. As does the somewhat questionable math around contribution ratios. I suspect Greg is trying to push the envelope of what is allowed rather than sincerely trying to contribute, but build that case (the edit summary is one example in a series) and build it well, rather than blocking over technicalities. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it is about the spirit (block log says user edits against the spirit of his unban conditions). Anyway, in a nutshell, let's talk about the technicalities:

• Prior to the ban, ArbCom entered in a good faithed dialogue with Thekosher;
• Thekohser agrees and accepts duly a set of conditions;
• Thekohser starts editing in an inappropriate manner that any Wikipedian would be warned for (mainly edit summaries);
• Thekohser receives no warning;
• Thekohser goes further and keeps using inappropriate edit summaries;
• Gets warning from Arbitrator Coren;
• Thekohser goes on and keeps using inappropriate summaries;
• Thekohser recreates a deleted WP:BLP;
• Thekohser gets warned in a very explicit manner;
• Thekohser goes on and keeps using inappropriate edit summaries;
• Thekohser gets blocked.

So you mix all of the above (in a blender/mixer) and you get the formula: that Thekohser was back to make a point; not to edit the encyclopedia (these are both wp:point and wp:not; these are not wp:redlink). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Phrased that way, that's a much more compelling argument. This gives an actual pattern of problematic behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ, much more compelling when put this way. Thanks. As for those of us who were willing to AGF... I'm willing to be proven wrong from time to time, heck, even MOST of the time... because sometimes when I AGF, it works out. Good trade off. That's not to say I'm not willing to occasionally cut my losses when AGF means being a damfool. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary:

• Term 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.

• Term 3- Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack.

• TheKohser acceptance: 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.)

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at his contrib list since his unban, and on the whole, clowning comments aside, the content of his edits looked good to me. Thekosher's edits did help "build an encyclopedia," his comments to the contrary only paradoxically affected "the earlier good reputation" of his "original account and real name." However, for whatever that is worth, Thekosher did not violate his civility restriction, and more importantly, at no point did he agree to become a vassal of Arbcom. The Arbcom seems to have acted spuriously in this matter and for the record I do not support this block. Amerique^dialectics 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fueds... Please check a couple of contribs where his edits seem directed at Wikia's guy in a clear violation of the restriction. As for wp:point, the first edit ever after the unban (outside this talk page) was directed at user:Wizardman. Everyone can dig further for more. Those are clearly not good faithed edits. wp:point was excessively violated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look a bit harder e.g. [2], where he makes a rather childish and offensive pun on my name. It certainly violates his civility restriction. It was also followe a series of retaliatory edits against articles I edited because I reverted one his edits when it came up on my watch list. Justin talk 09:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorten the block please - forever is such a long time (we love ya Greg!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.14.36 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• (response to FayssalF - I went to bed after posting) I recognise that Greg is a special case, since he is a recently unbanned editor and under restrictions in the manner in which he conducts himself, but... edit summaries as the principle example of an assumption of bad faith? I am in trouble, then (yes, I know ArbCom does not make either policy or precedent), because when I have done my sixth or seventh addition of the words "United States" into some random articles in an evening my edit summary is invariably "counter hickism"... Of course, there are those who post no summary, or deliberately misrepresent their edits, and this does not often form part of the violations they are sanctioned upon. However, as I acknowledge, this is Greg - so I shall now concentrate on the application of indefinite; is the ban reactivated, or is it indefinite as in "to be lifted upon confirmation that concerns are addressed"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are just part of the problem. I wouldn't block just for edit summaries. As explained above, there are a few other problematic issues which include excessive pointy behavior and persistent feud. The unban deal was clear. And there were enough clear warnings. That said, ArbCom was indeed discussing discounting talk page edits from that ratio (I am still not sure if the whole idea of the ratio is beneficial). I indeed agreed with you up there when brought this point.

As for the status of the block I'd say that this is an admin block (no 'ArbCom block' was noted in the log). Therefore, this is not reinstating the ban. He's now indefinitely blocked and not banned. Since this is a special case (ArbCom unban) it is up to ArbCom to pass a motion to enact a ban, keep the status quo (see #ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban), admonish me or admins discussing with me a reduce/unblock possibility. As an admin, I can still accept an unblock but I am not ready to see this scenario gets repeated. There should be an end to all problematic behavior; same as everyone (yourself, me and all the rest of users who don't get into this). Now, you say this is a special case but I say that I make no distinction between users. I certainly would block users for such behavior (you probably would as well). I've asked above but still got two pertinent answers "why should we treat users differently?" and "why can't he just act as the rest of us?". His behavior creates an atmosphere of a battleground which violates the NOT policy. He's indeed very welcome but he should not treat co-editors as inferiors (children, kuntz, etc...). If Wikipedia got problems (a thing no reasonable person would deny) then fix them and we'd thank you for it but doing it at the expense of others (belittling them) is not acceptable. If people are ok with edit summaries like that then at least they should disagree with the pointy behavior. The ball is in Thekohser's camp. If he's really keen to "restore the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name" then he's welcome and we are ready to help and do our best but what he's been doing up to today is unproductive and doesn't help the reputation he's talking about. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point

Okay, what many people above seem to ignore is the obvious - ArbCom allowed Kohs back with restrictions. These restrictions were to guarantee that Kohs's attacks on Wikipedia would not be brought into Wikipedia. These attacks continued. The sarcastic edit summaries is just the final taunting. He knew it was wrong. Everyone here should know it was wrong. He dared ArbCom to block him. That is not the actions of someone who honestly wants to edit. And guess what? ArbCom -did- block him. Kohs asked for it, Kohs got it. That is all there needs to be known. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And to the policy loving people - WP:CIVIL ("Judgmental tone in edit summaries") and WP:POINT. Both were clearly crossed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: inappropriate commentary in edit summaries qualifies as disruptive editing and is a blockable offense. Consider the impact on an ordinary editor with a passion for certain subjects: they check their watchlist and see "the worst article on Wikipedia" as a headline? In what spirit will the ordinary editor now approach the situation? Geez, mayhap they will be defensive and confrontational? Inappropriate use of edit summaries is unacceptable. It poisons the environment and to boot can never be changed. Good block. Franamax (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears he was blocked for repeatedly making mock pledges of loyalty to the ArbCom; if insults were a factor at all, they were no doubt secondary. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And who cares that he was making lots of good edits all the while? I mean, writing articles isn't really all that important anyway, is it? No amount of good work can compensate for such a serious political offense! Everyking (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Making good edits to improve the encyclopedia is fine and dandy. Using the edit summaries to shit on everyone else is not. There is no "me" in "Wikipedia". Kohs is using a software feature to make a deliberate point, he's a smart guy and knows quite well he doesn't have to do that to contribute well. He's sneaking in a maleficent payload with his beneficial edits to the actual article space. IMO, that's deliberate testing of the limits and as such is disruptive. Shall I now make a sarcastic edit summary to prove my point? Franamax (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that I was shit on by his edit summaries—do you? In any case, if someone is blocked for politically incorrect use of edit summaries while making good edits, it's impossible to argue in favor of the block without arguing that content work is less important than a politically acceptable meta-presentation. Everyking (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an unfair question. Personally, I think you're all a bunch of idiots, so I don't read anything special into edit summaries. ;)

More seriously, we're not talking about only the wiki-elite who are well versed in the political intricacies. We're talking about the great unwashed who actually do the writing. They should only and ever read an edit summary which pertains strictly to the content of the article, and "per talk page" is included in that. References to ArbCom in particular, as distinct to references to Arb case rulings, are unproductive and confusing. Is there any dispute that the edit summary should addreass and explain the article edit? Franamax (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyking - he disrespected his own edits by connecting them to such edit summaries. If an individual cannot respect his own additions, how can he be expected to respect those of others? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He likes to be a class clown. I like to be a gadfly. We all have our quirks, which can be amusing or annoying depending on how you react to them. Probably the best way to react to them is to try to ignore them, not to get punitive about them and escalate the drama. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dan, if you are saying he is being a class clown then his edits cannot be taken seriously, right? He was allowed back only if he seriously edited. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to wisecrack, joke around, have fun, etc. while still taking the project seriously and contributing in the best way possible. Even if one is the class clown. However, on the face of the evidence available to me at this time, I don't see that as Greg's intent. We can never judge intent with certainty, only outcomes, but the outcome so far of letting Greg back hasn't been uniformly positive. Or even, some would argue, net positive. If Greg truly wanted to redeem himself, this wasn't the way. (that raises the question of whether he did actually truly want to, or whether he should have truly wanted to, given everything, (there's that pesky intent again) but he said he did) ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Kohs, we talked a bit. So please, why did you do it? Did you think it would be fun? Testing limits? Honestly didn't care? Thought it was the right thing? I would like to hear something on the matter. You know how to contact me if you don't want to talk about it on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottave Rima. Thekohser is discussing the issue with me in private. You've said your part but I certainly believe that insisting can never be helpful. What you are doing now would probably result in extending feuds and we all know that it was one of the main reasons why Thekohser was blocked for. I personally believe that a better atmosphere is essential. The encyclopedia is built by humans and for humans to work in the better conditions, the atmosphere should be clean. Whoever is not caring about preserving and maintaining cleanliness is not helping build the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is the thing that gets ignored by many established users and yet everyone insists that it doesn't matter much or at all. Many established users would argue year after year that what is important is content and yet they arrogantly ignore the fact that you can never produce good content inside a waste container full of garbage. What many of us here do is emptying that garbage and say "I am working... why are you looking at me? don't you see me working? Go to work!". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that much of the disputed behavior was presented as humor, good-natured, sarcastic or otherwise. Wikipedia is very far from being a sober-minded and scholarly project, but if it were, a good case could be made that edit summaries, since they present the history of the works being created, should be invariably be earnest and serious in character. From this idealistic perspective, Thekohser, like many or even most contributors, has fallen short.

That said, I don't agree that highly critical content-focused summaries should be held against anyone. Saying that a work is careless, poorly-reasoned or poorly-written is legitimate scholarly discourse, and perfectly normal. While optimally we will all walk away feeling good about our contributions - and, all other things considered, this is a legitimate aim - I cannot agree that this trumps the value of frank discussion about content. If expert contributions were ever to become the norm, we would see a great deal more of this; its a bad idea to ban people for being rightly critical of content, even scathingly so, on the grounds that to do so is uncivil, or makes its creators feel bad.

By all means, work it out among yourselves, but I wonder if we could solve this by agreeing that the Kohser's edit summaries shall be earnest, serious and without humor, sarcasm, or irony, without further stipulating that they must be unduly respectful of low quality content and its creators. If articles look like they were written by someone less than fluent in the language, or who doesn't know what he/she is talking about, this is a much bigger problem than someone pointing that out.

We can also observe that summaries such as "I love Wikipedia with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom"[3] are very unlikely to have been made had not ArbCom been watching and warning him. In this light, the block is as much a violation of WP:POINT ("We are ArbCom, you cannot mock us without consequence!") as the summaries themselves, with the (not trivial) exception that you are not directly disrupting mainspace. However, it's worthwhile to ask if unwarranted scrutiny of Thekohser is creating a problem rather than solving one. Some people react negatively to perceived harassment from what they see as unearned authority; I've a feeling Thekohser is one of those. In such cases, diligent policing provokes the transgressions it means to confront.24.22.141.252 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I think that the amount of time and energy being spent by members of the Arbitration Committee -- arguably one of the most precious resources of this project -- is tragic. On a personal level, I like Greg, I find his sense of humor rather endearing, and I believe he has a great deal to contribute to this project -- both in content, and in his perspective on the organizational structure of the project. However, after many months of following his relationship with the project, I believe the kind of disruption that continually surrounds his participation is too great a tax on the collaborative environment that is necessary for the project to function. I would not presume to state whether the fault lies more with Greg, with his obsessive detractors, or with any other party; it's simply a bad situation. I hope it can be resolved soon, decisively, and in a way that preserves everybody's dignity. In cases like this, it's unfortunate that decisive action is so uncomfortable in the Wikipedia ethos; however, we have ArbCom for a reason, and one of those reasons is to take decisive action when that's what the community needs. Though I value transparency in big decisions, I would not expect ArbCom to be entirely accountable to the community in a case like this. They have the power to make decisions, and they are not obligated to explain their reasoning in exhaustive detail; ArbCom members are there in large part out of recognition of their good judgment. I don't think the second-guessing of every ArbCom decision relating to this situation is helpful.

Decisive action on Greg's part could also lead to resolution, and I think this is what most everybody would prefer to see. I think at this point, Greg would need to exhibit a strong and sustained effort to demonstrate good faith, and make a personal commitment to avoid becoming the center of attention. -Pete (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Pete. You make a good point about proper use of resources. It is indeed all too easy for ArbCom to get sucked into resolving petty disputes (I'm referring to other people and cases here), or long-term issues with one or two users, to the detriment of the normal day-to-day end stages of dispute resolution. We do try and stay aware of that and keep going with the other (more important) work, and not get too focused on things like this. It would actually be useful for people to look at the summary of what we did in the first six months and see if we are getting this balance right. The other point is that things like this can draw on the time of editors (an even more valuable resource). How many of the editors above could have better spent their time doing work elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Working out whether to resolve things decisively now, or manage things at a more low-key level, is one of the more difficult judgments to make. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)