User talk:Thekohser

Hello Greg, thanks for your work here at Wikibooks! It's always good to see new members here. We've been working on an introduction page, Wikibooks for Wikipedians to help smooth over some of the differences between our project and WP. That document is always out of date and incomplete, so any feedback you may have about it would be a good help.

Please let me know if you need anything or if you have any questions about how things work around here. In some ways we're very similar to WP, but we also tend to be much nicer and more laid back. Good luck with your work, and good luck with your candidacy! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Whiteknight. Out of respect to my platform, I'm not likely to contribute much here until I see authentic changes at the Foundation level that show a commitment to ethics, accuracy, and excellence in online media.  It would be like knowingly working in a managerial role for Enron because the folks in the mail room are really nice people.  Thank God you view your cultural "tone" as different than Wikipedia, though! -- Thekohser (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, and I appreciate your politics. I don't want to badmouth, but I'm aware that Wikipedia has some severe problems, and those are things that we need to seriously consider as a complete community. Luckily, Wikibooks has developed a far-different culture and community, and many other sister projects have done so as well. We have been fortunate to learn many lessons the easy way: by seeing Wikipedia's mistakes and choosing not to follow them. The battle at Wikipedia might be an uphill one, but as I hope we've proven here, there is plenty of hope. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for channeling me, Greg. I'm honored.  —Moulton 03:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for channeling me, Greg. I'm honored.  —Moulton 03:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
I've already voted for board (I put you 2nd or 3rd, I don't recall exactly), but I wanted to say kudos for what you're doing here... rather than pretending there isn't a problem, actually trying to help fix it is definitely the attitude the board needs. Giggy (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You can still change your vote, Giggy, so that I am ranked #1. What are you waiting for?!  ;-)  -- Thekohser (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tepid progress
There has only been one edit since my own on the WWII chapter. Sigh. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another month gone, still no edits. I think I'm done with Wikibooks. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:What do you think?
It is disappointing but hardly surprising. We don't have a huge volume of editors here, and most of the people we do have are already spoken for. Everybody here already has their own pet projects that keep them occupied. Writing a new book or even fixing an old one is far too big a task for most people to tackle casually. It is nice that we've identified the problem, that's the first step in making sure it gets resolved eventually. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
Looks like you're at the wrong project, Pathoschild/Adrignola. This is Wikibooks, not Wikiversity. Not that anything blockworthy happened there, but that's for them to decide. By the way, it is customary to leave a timestamp when you post on a talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This notice is to the user that the steward Pathoschild blocked him here and on every other project for the reason listed above. I did not make the block and I'm also quite aware of how to sign my posts.  The above is a notice, not a post, and is intended to detail the procedure to be followed to request an unblock.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adrignola, that was not clear from the post. In that case, I ask to unblock. As far as I can see, user has done nothing bad here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot request that Thekohser be unblocked. Furthermore, he is banned on all WMF projects, so he will not be unblocked here. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I can, and I have. And no, he is not banned on all WMF projects. There seems to be a request to do so, although no proper argument has been provided, but we are not obliged to comply. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Guido: I blocked Thekohser on every wiki after removing the [ global lock], to allow each local community to decide whether to override it. Mike is a member of that community; the answer on this wiki seems to be no. — Pathoschild 05:20:54, 08 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that this needs to go further or changes the present situation but I make a point of making two correction, 1) an unblock request should be only done by the blocked user. 2) Mike is a member of the community but he doesn't make decisions for the community. --Panic (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Pathoschild, thanks for the explanation. It doesn't seem right though that you would block someone outside the normal channels and then sit back and wait for a possible unblock. You should simply notify the projects about the request, nothing more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Panic2k4: although rare (which I find strange and disappointing), anyone can request an unblock. It is even possible for the blocking party to reconsider and undo the block themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Our policy doesn't prevent it but if faced with such a circumstance I would prompt the user to address the general community in an extended discussion. As for the alteration of the block it doesn't get formalized as a unblock request (a chance to the blocker to explain his side of the issue).  --Panic (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the request I made above and ask you to make a decision, or first discuss the matter with your fellow administrators. Best regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. This type of unblock wouldn't pass only by any admin decision. You should request it to the blocking administrator and if get no response (or don't like it and can't get a consensus on what to do) proceed to the general discussion area and post it for the community to decide (but be sure to have the good arguments to back your request). --Panic (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't like Pathoschild decision to block and then "sit back", I suggest you take that to meta which is the appropriate place to discuss Steward actions. As for unblocking here, there are 11 admins who may consider this request, once a request is made. The unblock request can indeed be made by you but as it doesn't provide any justification other than you can't see anything bad here... I'd want to see Thekosher stating why they should be unblocked, until then I'm not unblocking. QU TalkQu 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One would think that that is sufficient justification! Anyway, see below. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating my request, as Mike is way too involved to be objective and doesn't provide a valid block reason anyway, but has now removed user's right to edit his own talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request
Uh, Mike, the global ban was not confirmed, the global lock was undone. If minimum disruption is what you are seeking, I suggest not blocking users if they are not disruptive here, that is the general consensus. Please unblock. --74.106.73.35 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) (This is enwiki user Abd).

It's too bad that Thekohser didn't offer to improve anything here if unblocked like was done at Wikiversity; say, Wikipedia, which is linked from Wikipedia and would offer an opportunity to be constructive instead of destructive/obstructive within Wikimedia (if it were even possible for him to maintain a neutral point of view). I also don't think you're earning any points with Mike with this, this, or this, this, or this. Defame much? Don't forget to reference this post when you complain about the block later. If I found these in your publicly-viewable forum, I'm sure Mike's seen them as well; is anyone posting here not involved? It may be that local administrators do not wish to wheel war over someone who hasn't contributed meaningfully here in a year after leaving in a huff because we just weren't active enough. While infighting may be "fun to watch" on Meta or Wikipedia, the community's too small here for us to turn against each other, and interestingly enough, if we did, it'd probably be part of your agenda as well. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia Review, actually. Thekosher's on-wiki actions are all I'm going on. In any event, I'm sure we all have more important things to do... &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 18:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Status of Wikijunior
I am writing an investigative journalism piece on Examiner.com about the "Wikijunior" project that received from the John and Frances Beck Foundation a $10,000 grant in 2004/05, and then another $15,000 in 2006, with the intention of printing in hard-copy short books about different subjects, written for younger children. Does anyone know if any books were actually ever printed? Replies here are welcome, or at ResearchBiz@gmail.com. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (on behalf of Gregory Kohs)


 * I'm not sure there's even anyone still here that was around between 2004-2006 to answer this. You would need to contact someone with the Foundation. – Adrignola talk 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is this curious publication by "Various Contributers" (sic). I'm trying to contact three of the listed "authors" of that work.  It would be interesting to find out who exactly is pocketing the $17.38 when someone buys "Big Cats". -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (on behalf of Gregory Kohs)


 * Well, the content is CC-BY-SA and not CC-BY-NC-SA, so if someone wants to sell a copy of the content, they are allowed to do so. I guess the rationale is that the spreading of knowledge for profit is better than no knowledge spread at all.  I'm sure PediaPress makes a decent profit off of selling printed versions of Wikibooks books as well; the Foundation probably gets a cut of that, however.  I could be angry, sure, but then I'd have to ask myself whether I'm a volunteer or not. – Adrignola talk 22:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request - 2nd attempt
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the unblock request for Thekohser, being that he is actively contributing now to Commons and to Wikisource, and (through IP self-reversion) to Wikiversity. Why is Wikibooks particularly afraid of him? He's even looking out for Wikibooks' financial grant-writers. What's the message Wikibooks is sending that such a potential contributor is rejected? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point, as the account is globally locked, by the same individual who also blocked Thekohser locally. I don't think Wikibooks is sending any message, as that would assume a community exists to collectively agree upon such a thing. – Adrignola talk 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's entirely moot. Even if an account is globally locked, it's still possible to post without logging in and manually sign one's contributions. I do that routinely, and nobody doubts that my signature is authentic.  —Moulton 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request - 3rd attempt (from own User account)
-- Thekohser (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As you may be aware the community has been presented the information regarding what has been happening in relation to your accounts, I ask you to continue to be patient. Unblock requests are rare events.
 * I take the chance to make a minor clarification, you have not violated any of our local rules and in your small participation on our project have done valid contributions, but establishing them as laudatory seems to be going a bit too far. They are good and recognized as such and we do hope that you may be able to do more for our project...
 * In regard to the block performed by Pathoschild, by the comment provided, it has been put to the community for a decision. I will try to inform him of the recent developments and your request so he may participate in the process, if that is his wish. --Panic (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All duly noted, Panic. You're right, "laudatory" was a bit over-the-top.  Maybe "promising" would have been a more accurate label.  I'll be patient.  I know that deeply-ingrained perceptions can take time to give a fresh look. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that my input is not necessary here and now, but in reviewing some of the discussion about me in the Reading Room, I notice that there seems to be some question as to what prompted a call by Jimmy Wales for my global banning, anyway. The evidence shows that my comment here on Wikiversity is the straw that broke the camel's back. Granted, Jimmy and I have had words with one another since about August 2006. Multiple times over the years I've brought to public attention some sensitive items that he would rather have remained quiet or unnoticed. Neutral observers can easily figure out what is really going on here, I trust. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been carefully trying to negotiate unblock on Wikiversity under conditions that would respect whatever legitimate needs of the WMF exist, and I expect that unblock to happen soon, the only reason he does not have an unblocked account there already is an unfortunate incident of wheel-warring, which is currently under review by the community. If Thekohser attempts to use Wikiversity or Wikibooks as a platform for illegitimate criticism of the WMF or WMF users, and this is not locally addressed and interdicted, this will prompt steward intervention. Hence, on Wikiversity, I've assured the community (and those involved with the WMF, if they watch or review) that the contributions of Thekohser will be watched for problems. It is ironic that it appears that it was early on suggested that Wikiversity would be an appropriate place to review WMF "Ethics," because of the policy there allowing original research. However, what was missing were the combination of established ethical standards for such research, itself, and effective monitoring of the situation for possible abuse. This led to intervention by Jimbo, twice, in 2008 and in March, 2010. Thekohser's analysis of the immediate occasion for Jimbo's action is cogent, and possibly correct, but I recommend he drop it here. It is not relevant. Thekohser was blocked here as part of an action at meta to lift the global lock and allow local communities to decide. I.e., stewards went around and implemented local blocks that could then be reversed locally. It is unknown why, later, May 30, Mike.lifeguard reinstated the global lock, making all that steward work earlier moot, but I can guess, and it's not a bad reason. But it's really moot for this wiki, which is capable of monitoring and addressing problematic contributions by Thekohser. I do not suggest allowing any of the wikis to be used for "cross-wiki" criticism or disruption, absent standards and monitoring for abuse. There should be no harm at all in allowing Thekohser to make ordinary and useful contributions. If anyone thinks he is straying from that, I recommend they warn him, and if he ignores the warning, take action. Any problematic contributions can be reverted by any ordinary editor, and this can be discussed as needed, without repeating the problems. Good luck, Wikibooks. This is your decision, that's quite clear. The stewards are not telling you what to do. (If they need to, they will!). --Abd (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the need to have other related subjects addressed but it is somehow obvious that the issues shouldn't be mixed and no chance should be given to mix them. Extending the discussion beyond the issue at hand (the block/unblock) is not productive and risks derailing the process into something that it seems you are indicating has occurred at Wikiversity.
 * I ask you not to cover for now other subjects until the user has been returned to a state of equality.
 * I don't agree with the phrase "If Thekohser attempts to use Wikiversity or Wikibooks as a platform for illegitimate criticism of the WMF or WMF users, and this is not locally addressed and interdicted, this will prompt steward intervention." (at many levels), but I think the community, as per the suggestion given on the discussion, should take steps not to allow a repetition of this external intervention. As for the criticism I don't think Wikibooks is the forum for WMF discussion (that would be meta) but I would welcome any intervention if in context to our project. WMF and WMF collaborators aren't perfect and they should be able address any issue that concerns them. Anyway as I said, these topics should be addressed after the running process is ended.  --Panic (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Panic, I think you may have misunderstood me. "Illegitimate criticism" would include any cross-wiki or WMF criticism that is out of scope. It means disruptive criticism. I'm agreeing with you, the phrase "illegitimate criticism" covers all kinds of criticism that would not be allowed here. My comments gave some history, and that is not criticism, in itself. Sometimes, to understand the arguments that some will raise, it's necessary to have some history. It's a grey area. What's happening on Wikiversity is almost the same as what is happening here. Almost everyone wants the account unblocked or doesn't know about the issue or doesn't care. The involved sysops and 'crats want to be careful, to protect all interests, so the process is taking time. What I wrote about the "if Thekohser uses...." was not a criticism of Thekohser, nor a claim that his criticism has been or would be illegitimate, it was a prediction, the kind of thing that the Foundation, from Jimbo on out, will want local wikis to consider. If the needs of the Foundation are neglected, Foundation functionaries are likely to intervene. We don't want that and they don't want that, they are only likely to do it if they see some kind of emergency.
 * Bottom line: if the Wikibooks community is satisfied that it has the resources to monitor the situation and discover and handle problems locally, responding to concern from the WMF if that's expressed, then unblocking Thekohser is safe. If not, it could be risking future disruption. It might still be harmless, that would be up to Thekohser, really. The global lock, whether legitimate or not, was intended, clearly, to set a default condition; local wikis can then decide whether to move around that or not. I advise caution, but, you should realize, I've been supporting the unblock of Thekohser, and, as a probationary custodian on Wikiversity, did unblock his acknowledged alternate account. There was no damage from that unblock; the disruption on Wikiversity came from wheel-warring on the unblock, and subsequent block enforcement measures, and that is currently being resolved. I have no crystal ball, but right now it looks like 95% that Thekohser will be unblocked within a matter of days, using the same approach as you are using here. My post here was merely to inform this community of what was happening on Wikiversity, as well as a bit of the history, and I've also reported your process on Wikiversity as well. The principles are quite the same, and I agree with the apparent consensus at this point at . Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said this considerations should be discussed at a later time as they aren't related to the current action (they aren't because events didn't happen on this project, haven't been established as a valid reason for the block or having a bearing on the unblock and we already seen that we need to make changes in our local rules to prevent a repetition. It shouldn't also be assumed that the user will engage in any sort of abuse here since he hasn't done it before).
 * You also need to realize that the user at this time is limited on the way he may participate on any discussion or even considering the situation he is in, it can easily serve to provoke him into making statements that can unnecessarily aggravate the problem. Being blocked is an extremely frustrating situation. We should wait and not give a chance to permit any aggravation by prematurely digging deep on the subject. --Panic (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Status report after two weeks
It has been approximately two weeks since my request for unblock. Could someone summarize for me about where we stand on this process, and what is the pathway ahead for us? It seems to me that the globally-acting agent is the only one acting out of process, without support. But correct me if I'm wrong. -- Thekohser (editing from 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC))


 * We have discussed your situation and it was found that we don't have any motive to block you locally, in fact it has been determined by the normal decision process that the block should not stand as there is no consensus to support it. The only voice objecting to restore you to the normal was by Mike but based in unsubstantiated allegations that you are globally banned. Mike has unilaterally and without backing from the community reblocked you (in violation of the local policy) in a reversal of the action by Adrignola in behalf of the community. At present you are in fact in limbo, you shouldn't consider yourself blocked or banned by the Wikibooks community but without an admin willing to act there is nothing more we can do. This situation you find yourself is not new and is based on the fact that no one is obliged to act, it is comprehensible that Adrignola has excused himself to continue to act further on the subject.
 * The only avenues open for you is (non-destructive) civil disobedience as to call and force an action from the community (depending on how you go about it, in special the level of disruption, you will incur the risk that it can backfire on you), to go outside of Wikibooks for instance to an appeal to a steward that is willing to act in behalf of our community and fix your situation or wait that an admin changes his mind or a new one is elected that has the will to enforce our policies and complies with our decision process.
 * Keep in mind that part of the community does recognize the injustice of your situation, not based in any support for alleged actions your made outside of Wikibooks, that most of us see as outside of our capacity to act, verify or control (that is the domain of the projects were the alleged actions took place or meta) but recognizes this local situation as an aberration brought to our community from outside that has resulted in unparalleled disregard for our local rules and normal practices.
 * Good luck, I (and probably other Wikibookias) will be available and willing to go outside of Wikibooks to make this situation clear or support a proper decision process that will analise and reach a clear decision about the accusations made against you. --Panic (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are aware, if you haven't yet take a look also in the thread at Reading_room/Administrative_Assistance. --Panic (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Panic's version of events thus far is not universally shared. Various of the above statements, presented as facts, are more properly opinions.  I (for example) am not in accord with several of those opinions.  Keep that in mind when interpreting the above.


 * I recommend against (mis)application of "civil disobedience" to the situation. --Pi zero (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to see in what grounds Pi zero disagrees with the facts as I presented them. It would be interesting and useful if Thekohser himself made an analysis of the situation and establish a log. Since Thekohser is unblocked at Wikiversity keeping it there on his userspace would also create visibility to what is happening on Wikibooks (even making a comparison regarding the process of regularization across projects), this will also prevent confusion regarding signing the edits. --Panic (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure, of course, but Pi zero may have been influenced by representations made to him off-wiki by Mike.lifeguard, there have been other signs that this is happening. Pi zero, I'd encourage you to watch for and participate in any process that carefully considers the issues. Lots of stuff gets said that simply is not true, and toss enough mud, some of it sticks. There are very important metacommunity issues involved here, they are larger than Thekohser, or, frankly, I wouldn't be bothering with this. --Abd (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Civil disobedience in this case will only be considered so by anyone clinging to the fact that the block was not yet lifted, as meaning that the user is banned from the community. --Panic (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that at least two admins where not able to take part in the unblock discussion. It has a very short life in the reading room.  In short I don't believe it lives up to our usual definition of consensus.  At least three admins (and some editors) currently support the block judging from the recent discussion in the reading room.  I trust Pi Zero to make up his own mind despite who he may have spoken with off wiki.  Thenub314 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that all admins participate or that they are always present, but there is at least a presumable expectation that they will extend the administrative task to inspect what other admins are doing. In this case you should have noticed that several blocks were performed and the situation the user was in, long before I felt the need to make the situation more publicly known. I again call your attention to the error you make on the analysis of the issue, there was no need for a consensus, the user was improperly interfered with in the first place, as the original action has no sanction its undoing does not require one.
 * In fact I hope this is the last time that "time" is called as a validation for the inability of people to properly justify unwillingness to take a position and apply our rules. To this fact and to close this issue about the time available, I call you to examine the date I brought the issue to a more public review and the first time anyone protested about the time frame granted to the discussions, all my posts initiating discussions clearly indicated the time attributed to running them. I dismiss any argument about "no time to participate" if no objection was present about that fact in the 7 days after my initial posts establishing 3 days for the first discussion and 7 days for the second.  --Panic (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand that I disagree with your analysis of the situation. From my own point of view, I have made no error. I understand your position, and why you think I made an error, but I simply disagree with it.  Also, I am not using time as a way of justifying an "unwillingness to take a position".  I made my position clear in the reading room.  I appreciate that we disagree about the situation, and I hope you recognize there is not as much of a consensus on this issue. Thenub314 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The points I read you raising are that you don't recognize the subject because you didn't participate in the discussion, that the situation of Thekohser requires specific consensus to unblock and that you still defend that we are the right forum to discuss the alleged actions of Thekohser outside of Wikibooks.
 * I have now demonstrated why I disagree with those views. I've pointed out their problems, that they go against our normal practices and outside of our project's scope. You have yet to demonstrate the opposite, why should we create an exception here? Why should we come to agree with you ?
 * I have from the beginning stated that there is no consensus on the subject, that was why I proposed to restore the user situation to the original state of freedom. This is like any other edit conflict, consensus can only be reached after the reversal of the objected alteration (to the previous state of consensus) as to seek the best compromise possible. --Panic (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that not a bit of work has been completed on World War II/Strategic Bombing in Europe. Had I been unblocked two weeks ago, I could have completed that section for Wikibooks by now. This is appearing very clearly now to be far more about political fealty to Mike.lifeguard and Jimmy Wales than about care and concern for the Wikibooks project itself. I have been unblocked on English Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and English Wikiversity, and I have been contributing recently to all three. I have not noticed one whit of disruption that I've spurred at any of those three projects, and it's been months now on a couple of them. Could the Wikibooks community please describe for me what exactly it is that you fear will result from an unblock here that will be damaging to either the project or to the project community? Perhaps I can offer assurances that those fears will not be realized, if only I knew what they were. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC))


 * I am unfamiliar with the term fealty, you mean a sense of obligation or loyalty? My objections are based on your actions elsewhere, such as using Cool3's account. I have no real reason to believe you have seen any error in your ways. Moreover, you have a handful of edits over a period of years here, which to me makes claims that you now really want to write a page on strategic bombing seem less than sincere.  In the mean time, if I am wrong, I have recently found out developing textbooks also falls under the scope of WV.  Putting my personal feelings about this fact aside, perhaps you may realize your ambitions there. Thenub314 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, you filed that RfD. You did not understand the issues when you filed it, and you still do not understand the result. That was about a class project, an integral part of an educational resource for a real university class using Wikiversity for much of its process. It would have been disruptive of that to require that students also split their activity between there and Wikibooks. But simply creating a book from the outset? No, that belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (discuss • contribs)


 * Fealty? There's a wiki-based, open-content dictionary for that, Thenub.  Do you have evidence that I "used" Cool3's account?  How strong do you consider that evidence?  Have you seen the primary evidence yourself, or are you trusting the narratives of others to provide you an idea of the evidence that they saw?  How do you know that Cool3 was not my own account, through and through?  What terms of service did the Cool3 account violate?  Can you point to the one or two disruptive edits or actions that were taken by the Cool3 account?
 * Personally, I view Wikiversity as a more dynamic "learning and research" environment, where students interact with scholars on an ongoing basis. Therefore, I would prefer that my more static contributions about strategic bombing (and I do have a background in this topic) be installed on Wikibooks, while my more dynamic projects be installed on Wikiversity.
 * You have had virtually no interaction with me prior to the recent dispute with Mike.lifeguard, which to me makes claims that you now really want to protect Wikibooks from me seem less than sincere.
 * By the by, I'm now unlocked and unblocked on Wikinews (in addition to Commons, Wikisource, and Wikiversity). -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC))
 * I did check a dictionary, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some connotation. I will attempt to answer your questions in roughly the order they were asked. My "evidence" was a statement by you during your steward election, I think you said it was "abundently clear".  The evidence is strong enough to satisfy me.  No I have not seen the primary evidence myself, but I will take your word. I have no idea if it violated a terms of service.  But I am not filtering through each edit looking for edits I consider disruptive or edits that violate terms of service.  Editing from an account with administrator tools after you had already been blocked is disruptive enough in my book. If you would care to tell me about exactly how you came by this account I would be curious to know.  Was the accout of Cool3 yours from the very beginning, and if so are you also Cool three?
 * Anyways congradulations on your recent unblocks. I hope you have fun editing at those wiki's, maybe we will bump into each other at WV. I am glad we share the notion that it is not the best to book development. Cheers Thenub314 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please tell me I didn't type "abundently" (sic). So, you feel that the evidence shows that editing as an administrator when blocked on another account, doing no visible harm at all to Wikipedia (in fact, helping out quite ably), and admittedly no violation of any terms of service transpiring for activity on the site, is -- in a word -- "disruptive".  You have a very special perspective, my friend.  I wonder if I were to wipe my mouth with a napkin in a restaurant, would that be disruptive to the other diners?  Anyway, if you are convinced that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee knows beyond a reasonable doubt that Cool3 was being used by me while Thekohser was blocked, then shouldn't the Arbitration Committee also be able to deduce whether or not the Cool3 account was mine from the beginning, and whether or not I was Cool three?  I would tell you the entire story myself, but I am advised not to issue my own public testimony about this, because I was threatened on Wikipedia with federal electronic terrorism charges (18 U.S.C. § 1030) if my story happened to incriminate myself.  Of course, that editor was not blocked for making "legal threats".  Maybe his User name protected him. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC))
 * This is the diff on meta. No, TK, you spelled the word correctly. There are many Wikipedians and other WMF users who are completely clueless on the original meaning of w:WP:IAR. Many users use and have used alternative accounts, with and without disclosure, and to my knowledge there are no TOS restrictions against this. Community norms might be violated, sometimes, but community norms do not establish a legal requirement, nor do they necessarily establish a moral one that supersedes IAR or the norms of ordinary human society, which include expectations of fair treatment; whatever moral obligation exists to cooperate within community norms, when a user is openly allowed editing privileges, disappears when the user is blocked or banned, which is one reason why it can be a very bad idea to address disputes by blocking disputants, more than "please step outside the room while this cools off!." Moral covenants are void when without consideration, for those inclined to legal explanations. Nothing offered, nothing required in return. What, exactly, is the community offering a blocked editor, that the editor has some obligation in return, assuming that he or she accepts the offer?
 * I have begun a process of approaching certain blocked ("banned") editors with respect (without losing sight of the community welfare). It works. People respond much better when treated with respect. Now, do I always treat others with respect? No, I don't. Should I? Maybe. But sometimes I have a point to make. If I persist in disrespectful treatment, shame on me.
 * Among other things, activity that improves the project can only be called disruptive in a narrow sense. If we look at the contributions of Cool3, we see evidence of many hours of contributions. The "disruption" involved -- the necessary response to the discovery -- is tiny by comparison. I'm suggesting the development of some perspective here.
 * And now, Greg, the real question. How much did you pay for that account? We'd love to know. But I don't know that you actually paid for it. Maybe you were him all along. Maybe you hacked the password. Maybe he gave it to you. Perhaps he trusted you to do good with it. (And if so, apparently that trust was not betrayed.) We don't know, and, in fact, we don't need to know. If anything, that affair indicates that you can be trusted, not the reverse. You had admin tools and you did not abuse them. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And what have I done to be treated with so little respect? If I want to be treated better should I get banned first? Thenub314 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a good idea to bring off-wiki behavior here. However, if you think behavior of mine, here, is inappropriate, I presume that you know where my Talk page is located. (Thenub has declined (on Wikiversity) to communicate with me by email on this, citing concerns about his identity. Personally, I don't have a great deal of trust in administrators who are not willing to be open about identity, it can cover up much that a community should actually know. But under current policy, that's his privilege. Ordinarily, though, even hostile administrators, on Wikipedia, have often responded to email from me.)


 * As to getting banned first, obviously not. However, I do not equate and protect the dignity of administrators, with free rein to libel and defame blocked editors, in the same way as the dignity of those blocked. When I see an administrator standing up for the rights of those who have been abused, arguing for fair treatment consistent with the welfare of the project, and acting for that when possible (it is not always possible!), then I am more likely to assign to myself a responsibility to treat them equally. When one takes on privileged executive power, and exercises it, there arises a responsibility to behave under higher standards. Basically, I expect more of administrators than of ordinary editors, and more of ordinary editors than of blocked editors. Doesn't that seem natural? And, remember, I'm just an ordinary editor here and elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
First of all, do not take the advice to use Wikiversity to address problems here, unless it is done with extreme caution. That is, you could, at Wikiversity, acknowledge that certain IP edits here are yours. That should not be controversial, but it's also probably not necessary now.

The situation at Wikibooks is difficult, probably because of a shortage of admins to address issues. Adrignola's response is not surprising. He's not willing to wheel-war, unless there is a clear consensus behind him. He's a 'crat. That's his obligation. The problem is that another 'crat is not respecting process, and has misrepresented the truth of the situation, and has clearly been canvassing, presenting arguments elsewhere for his views here, which is also generally contrary to policy. It is known that there is no steward consensus on the meaning of the "ban." It is clear that there is, in fact, no "ban." A real ban would mean that a user would be blocked on all WMF wikis, and that's obviously not true, and it is not just Wikiversity.

Normally, it can be called a "ban" when no admin is willing to unblock, or, alternatively, there is a clear community decision to ban -- i.e., an admin unblocking would be violating consensus. However, an admin did unblock here, having reviewed the arguments and consensus, and another admin reversed that without any disruptive behavior or additional evidence. The only evidence was "He's banned and that's that." Well, obviously Thekohser isn't banned, because an admin was willing to unblock, and there is no community consensus prohibiting that, neither here nor at meta.

Rather, the situation at Wikibooks is that there is an admin and 'crat who believes he owns the place, and if the community isn't willing to address that, he owns the place. In fact, the whole issue is in limbo. it will take time.

It is possible to address this at meta, but I'd consider it premature. I would not try without identified steward support. Not yet.

So, my suggestion for the near future, Thekohser, is that you follow what was done at Wikiversity. Self-reverted edits, good content, not controversial. Theoretically, the goal of blocks is to prevent disruptive content. Therefore if you do this, you can "suggest" content, and you can list those edits on this page. This isn't "evasive," if you identify the edits. If the IP is blocked, it will be demonstrating that something is going on besides fulfilling the purpose of bans. And the community, as it becomes aware, will not support this.

(And if it does, the wiki will likely fail, and you are better off not investing in a sinking ship. But it won't, that's my strong sense.)

Others watching, notice if Thekohser makes self-reverted edits. They should stand out fairly easily, they will be IP edits with a summary that includes "will self-revert per block of Thekohser," and they will then be self-reverted. If you care to help, review these edits, and restore them if they appear to be good content. Thekohser is not likely to push the edge.

I did most of this work on Wikiversity, with some help. I will not do the work here, because I'm trying to respect that, in some sense, I'm an "outsider" and I might not understand local traditions.

There should be no reason to block the IP, if it is only used for good edits, even more if only for self-reverted edits (because there is no need for anyone who doesn't want to do it to examine the content for suitability), but, hey, there was no reason to block Thekohser here either. So it may happen. Thekohser, please be patient.

And those who think of what I'm suggesting as "encouraging block evasion," please understand that the ultimate goal of policies and guidelines and procedures is good content, obtained with reasonable efficiency. The "self-reversion" plan produces only good content, as defined by unblocked editors, taking responsibility for it. I'm encouraging the contribution of good content. Period.

Meanwhile, I will ask for this user page to be unblocked, and/or for email to be allowed. Thekohser is allowed to send email at meta, I see no reason why not here. --Abd (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find Abd suggestion inappropriate and unacceptable. Please do not follow this course of action. Thenub314 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those who care more about enforcing arbitrary rules, and confirming their own prior expressed opinions, than they do about the welfare of the project, can be expected to oppose what I suggested; in any case, if Thekohser elects to proceed in this way, it cannot be stopped. Nor, in fact, should it be.


 * Thenub, please give me one reason why Thekohser should respect your request. Not from your point of view, but from his. You want him to continue to be banned, but for no clear reason, only citations of behavior, without evidence, based on rumors from elsewhere. This is not exactly the way to elicit his voluntary cooperation, and, since your position now makes no sense to him, why should he expect your support in the future, should he cooperate with your request?


 * The general consensus, confirmed in multiple places, is that wiki users are only to be blocked for misbehavior on the wiki itself, and blocking them for behavior elsewhere is a slippery slope, involving hearsay, rumors, political intrugue, personal agendas, none of it verifiable from the clear record of the wiki itself, and thus readily susceptible to disruptive disagreement. On almost every wiki that has considered the issue, recently, a 'crat has unlocked the account so it could be locally unblocked, and it has been unblocked. Except here. Why here? Well, you know why. One administrator and 'crat here, the same person as the steward who implemented the global lock, alone, with no cited support, on May 30, quite apparently without consensus at meta, personally blocked again after Adrignola unblocked based on discussion. He did not base the block on local misbehavior, only on an alleged "global ban" that obviously does not now exist, since Thekohser is now editing freely on a number of significant projects, being Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and Commons.


 * You can see the global account status at . You can see that Pathoschild, who made most of the standing blocks, see, say, wiktionary, wrote Blocked indefinitely. Reason: requested by Jimbo for disruption/trolling at http://en.wikiversity.org/?diff=548143 (global lock changed to local block to let local community change it) The purpose of this action was to let local wikis make the decision, and, my guess, to still protect small wikis without the local resources to detect and address feared disruption. (That would be the reason for the global lock, which is more normally reserved for cross-wiki vandalism.) On de.wikipedia, you will notice that Thekohser is not blocked. That's because local administration undid the block. But that account is still attached, which simply means that the situation has not yet been addressed there. All the accounts which show today as being detached are also unblocked, except for Wikibooks.


 * The discussion on Wikiversity cited as the "request" for this block wasn't a request, it was simply Jimbo's comment, based, apparently, on his intention at the time. Later, Jimbo explicitly abandoned such interference in local wiki business. Rightly, I and others would deeply respect and consider his requests, but ... he is a human being and sometimes makes mistakes. In the end, WMF wikis depend on the community, not on any individual, not even one of the Founders.


 * If you look at the local block log for Thekohser, you will see that Pathoschild blocked, but that a few days later, May 12, Mike.lifeguard reblocked to disallow Talk page access (Thus defeating part of the purpose of Pathoschild's action, by disallowing a normal block request). Mike's later reblock, August 13, was clearly wheel-warring, an offense that Jimbo has often decried, because it is highly disruptive and damaging. He was asked if he was acting locally or as a steward, and he confirmed that the action was based on his local concerns. If he had claimed to be acting as a steward, it would have been obligatory to address this matter at meta, not here. And, my guess, his steward bit would have been toast. The WMF and the steward community consensus does not want to be lording it over local wikis, but rather exists to serve them, and they would definitely not want Mike to be violating this, as well as violating basic steward policy, which requires that steward decisions be based on open discussion on meta.


 * Pathoschild wrote:, Mike's statements reflect his personal opinion;] there is no steward consensus in favour of enforcing the ban in this way. My conversion of the global lock into local blocks was supported by steward discussion, although Mike is free to see it as a mistake.''


 * Mike, note, in his May 30 global lock, gave this summary: ‎(per discussion), implying consensus. However, he was asked about what this meant. His first response was, The reality is he's banned, and the ban is being enforced.


 * So I asked again, more specifically, about the "discussion." His response: "Being enforced" is passive voice because I'm not the only person enforcing this, but I couldn't be bothered to figure out who else had locked accounts etc. Jimbo banned him from all WMF projects. – mike@meta:~$  15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd mentioned his use of the "passive voice," and he chose to respond to that instead of the question about the discussion. I was trying to find where it was decided that Thekohser was globally banned and that it was to be enforced through a global lock. (At that point I did not know about the 'crat workaround.)


 * So I asked again, and he finally replied. There was both general and specific discussion. Much of the general discussion was in IRC (over a span of weeks); the specific discussion spread between stewards-l, checkuser-l, and some by private email. There's not one place I could point to for "The Discussion" which is why I didn't


 * Mike is writing in a way that later creates deniability. "I didn't claim that there was a consensus for global locking." But he has just acknowledged taking steward action without the open discussion required by Steward policy: Discussion of steward actions should occur on Meta, rather than privately, so editors can understand the stewards' decisions.


 * Mike went on to say, I don't think you noticed that there are other stewards locking his accounts as well. Again, he is making an implication without actually lying. I have seen two stewards who locked Thekohser. Turns out -- I hadn't see this before, that Jimbo agreed to a global lock on his Talk page on Wikipedia. That was May 3. Now, Magister Mathematicae had been the first to set a global lock that day. He then unset it, saying ‎(ok, jimbo cna [sic] do it if it's true) So he asked Jimbo, and Jimbo clearly didn't want a "big campaign," but accepted the idea of using the global lock. But he didn't do what had been suggested. He didn't do it himself. Instead, Magister did it, citing Jimbo's comment. Basing a steward action on discussion off of meta, violating policy. (I'd recommend reading the last comment in that Jimbo Talk page sequence.)


 * Pathoschild undid this May 5, and did the local blocks, not citing the Jimbo "permission," which would clearly be politically problematic, but citing the earlier comment of Jimbo on Wikiversity. Pathoschild has confirmed that his action was based on discussions. But where? I found no trace of this discussion on-wiki. My conclusion? It's a political hot potato. At this time, Jimbo was facing an RfC at meta over the very actions he had taken at Wikiversity. Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag. May 5, the RfC wasn't passing, it was at 23:32. But it was about to explode. Comments based on Jimbo's intervention at Commons started pouring in, beginning the 7th. At present, that RfC reached 405:125, and, on May 11, Jimbo requested that his intrusive Founder flag permissions be withdrawn. He's still got special privileges, but clearly only to allow him to see what is happening, not to control it.


 * There is no way that Jimbo is going to openly support the ban of Thekohser. So is Mike.lifeguard carrying his water? I certainly hope not, and I'm going to assume that (1) Jimbo had a good reason for considering Thekohser banned and for wanting this enforced, but also (2) That reason does not exist any more.


 * Why does the reason not exist any more? Well, under present conditions, it takes 'crat action to delink the account. No 'crat is likely to do this and then allow Thekohser to run wild. The problem of Wikiversity was a local community that was unable to resolve disputes, when there were, in fact, "cross-wiki issues" involved, i.e., the use of Wikiversity as a platform for criticism of "WikiMedia ethics." I happen to think that such criticism, properly done, is crucial. But it must be done according to carefully crafted guidelines, or it will be extraordinarily disruptive. I want Thekohser's participation in this, it is within his expertise, which is why I assisted his return to Wikiversity. But I very much don't want him to abuse that access, in order to pursue personal "vendettas," and I trust that he will respect this, because I also trust that he understands my long-term goals, which probably dovetail with at least some of his. He will make positive contributions at Wikibooks, or at least harmless ones, and if he runs outside that and ordinary warnings don't work, he will be blocked again. There is no danger, after all that happened, of a repeat. And, meanwhile, he will make positive contributions here, it is consistent with what he wants to accomplish.


 * You may support the result, of Mike's action, for your own reasons (Cool3? An admin account on Wikipedia that did a great deal of good work, with no allegations of actual disruption, other than possible identity of the user. Given the value of the work done by Cool3, seems that Wikipedia got the better part of that deal.) But if you cannot recognize the abuse of process involved, I'd seriously worry about your own capacities as a sysop. Would you do the same?


 * Stewards most certainly could create and enforce a global ban if they have consensus to do so, or direction from the WMF Board. They have not done so, and the strongest indication we have of apparent consensus appears in the local block log for Thekohser. A default "global block" was established, with local wikis having the right and the ability to reverse it. That was frustrated but not defeated by the global lock. The local account is now detached and an unblock here would be effective.


 * The most effective argument for unblock for a user like this, I have found, is not prior process failure, but a record of positive contributions. That is why the self-reversion approach is suggested to him. Through it, he may establish a record of positive contributions without complicating block enforcement. Because the edits are self-reverted, they do not require immediate attention, it is safe to rely upon complaint of actual and seriously disruptive content (and even such is usually harmless if it has been reverted). Self-reversion with identification of the user in the edit summary is, in fact, proof of cooperation with the community under difficult conditions. Truly disruptive users, I've found, will not agree to do this. They would rather disrupt, they would rather create enforcement difficulties.


 * Self reversion requires cooperation to be established between a blocked user and unblocked users. I have seen this cooperation arise where the cooperating unbanned editor was the very one who had requested the ban in the first place. If you know of any other way to establish cooperation like this (which is based on a mutual desire for actual project improvement that transcends prior disputes), please let me know.


 * Thekohser has strong intrinsic motivation to remain within acceptable behavior. I do not believe that a record of self-reverted contributions will count against him when unblock is being considered. They are intrinsically non-disruptive (if they are positive contributions and do not contain seriously objectionable content, such as gross incivility or outing.)


 * That you oppose this, Thenub, exposes the foundations of how you view wiki process. I'm not going to say more of what that means, but this community may ultimately draw its own conclusions from obvious evidence. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is quite a lot to read. I understand you have quite a lot of doubt about my abilities as an administrator, and it may be that my opinions differ significantly from the opinions of others.  I find myself in this position often.  If the community ultimately disagrees with me, I can accept that.  I am just pointing out that some users (such as myself) would find this type of action disruptive, particularly if it were carried out on a large scale.  Regardless of the nature of the content added.  Thekohser's only motivation for avoiding this would be he wished to avoid more conflict about the situation. Thenub314 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the classic response of someone who has not thought an unfamiliar idea all the way through.
 * This is not likely to be carried out on a truly large scale, not for long, anyway. But suppose it was. Compare this with ordinary IP socking, say. Which would you prefer, to see block-evading IP edits, not self-identified, requiring review of each one, until the identity is verified and the IP is blocked, and with the edits requiring reversion, or that the blocked editor self-identity, and self-revert? Which one requires more work from the community?
 * Suppose you believe that the contributions of an editor are worthless disruption. So you see some self-reverted edits. What do you do? Do you review them, wasting your time, so that you can determine that they are truly worthless? Why? Why not simply allow the editor, himself or herself, to enforce the block by self-reverting? Should you still block the IP? After all, the editor has made it easy to identify it! I'm claiming that, no, you should not, if it is only being used for self-reverted edits. It is *easy* to deal with self-reverted edits, and the work that proceeds after this (to consider the edits for possible restoration) is only done by those who think it might be worthwhile. What, exactly, is the problem with this? Only good content comes out of such a process! In actual practice, this builds cooperation between blocked editors and the rest of the community. Do you want to resolve conflicts or to perpetuate them?
 * Suppose some unblocked editor is in cahoots with a blocked editor, and simply reverts those edits back in, even if they are in themselves disruptive. Well, that is an identifiable problem behavior of an unblocked account, and that account should be warned, and blocked if needed. I would not advise a sock of a blocked editor to take on restoring the self-reverted edits of a blocked editor, it would attract attention! (And for the same reason, I would not allow IP reversion back in of self-reverted "under ban" edits, creating possible sock suspicions.)
 * As to some sort of idea that Thekohser gains by "avoiding this," I don't see anything that would be a gain for him. You would basically shut him out, without any possibility of contribution. Why? To "avoid conflict"? As far as I can see, someone who would raise a conflict over self-reverted edits has their own problems, has some agenda that is quite other than the welfare of the wiki. (I'm not talking about self-reverted edits that are attempting to game the system. As an example, self-reverting "outing" would be no protection, and would remain disruptive. Gross incivility might be the same, it's a judgment call.)
 * And against your totally unsubstantiated and shallow opinion, I have actual experience with self-reverted edits to point to. When a community is reasonably functional, it works. It worked on Wikiversity. WV, with little cost, gained some good content. And, as I've described, I've seen it work on Wikipedia. So ... why would it not work on Wikibooks? It will work better if this account has Talk page access, so that Thekohser can log in and acknowledge that the IP is his. But that's not necessary, it just helps avoid complications like straw puppetry.
 * You may not realize what depth of experience is behind these suggestions. They are not casual whims.
 * "Regardless of the nature of the content added" betrays a lack of concern for content, in favor of strict adherence to formal rules, even when the substance of the rules is being respected. That's a decline in understanding, it represents wikiknowledge that has been "stubbed." Now do you understand? --Abd (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
There's a clear community consensus to unblock your account, so I've unblocked it. As I said at the Reading Room, the community has not suggested placing any conditions on the unblock. Thank you for your patience while this process worked its way through. Wikibooks as you know is a small community and lacks a number of the forums (such as an arbcom) of the bigger projects that might have made this process easier. QU TalkQu 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration was tried for another user, and it left a bad taste. In this case, it would have been of no use. -Arlen22 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would arbitration have been "of no use" in this case? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was nothing to arbitrate over. The block proponents didn't have much of a case, and the unblock proponents didn't have much to defend from. This was not a difference between several users that could be resolved by a committee. This was a problem that had to be hashed out with the whole community. -Arlen22 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably incorrect. The issue that would have gone to local process would not have been the unblock of Thekohser, but, rather, defiance of expressed consensus and administrative action, through wheel-warring. On Wikipedia, a sysop can lose their bit from wheel-warring, and it may not matter that they were right, that's not the issue. The issue is process, a very important part of process, which is that admins don't wheel-war. Mike returned the block of Thekohser to the position that he himself had established (total block, no talk page access, no e-mail), after the block had been lifted by Adrignola. At that point, his obligation would have been to not return to his prior action, insisting on it. The general principle is that, before this is done, and absent a true emergency (what was the emergency?), he should have taken the matter to the community for discussion, if discussion with Adrignola didn't accomplish the matter, and then a decision would be made by another administrator. He didn't discuss with Adrignola, at least not on-wiki, and this kind of stuff, for transparency, should be on-wiki, at least the arguments should be presented on-wiki.
 * And if there was an emergency, he should have acted, declaring it so, and then consulted the community, not wait for someone else to start further discussion. That's the general obligation of administrators, it's explicit on Wikipedia, which has had to establish the clearest guidelines on this. The arguments against it generally depend on the admin being the "last bulwark against the hordes of spammers, pov-pushers, and trolls" which is how it starts to look to a burned-out administrator who has not realized how to turn most of the work over to the community, who has come to think that, for the welfare of the wiki, he or she must own it. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike's farewell
Your comment here is somewhat of a nuisance. He is the brain of wikibooks, and that makes it seem like you're glad to see him go. Cheers, Arlen22 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about this. He may have been important to WikiBooks at one time, but wikis that depend on one person are in deep trouble, almost certainly. I think that Thekohser's remark was unnecessarily strong, but, knowing Thekohser, it was at least expressing some positive wishes. I tried to make a more neutral comment that acknowledged conflict or opposition without insisting on my side of it. Arlen, I think you should realize that Thekohser was the target of quite a bit of serious assumptions of bad faith, that he did, in fact, put in a lot of work to improve the project, in different ways than Mike, so if he hasn't let go of all the resentments yet, it would not be surprising. That's somewhat of a consequence for the way that Mike went, particularly in the Latter Days. As a community, we need to develop ways to not allow situations to come to that point; we need to start restraining administrators who become too involved before they go off the deep end, and we need to find ways to support administrators before the stress gets to them. Those in the community who sit back, thankful that their Favorite Administrator is in charge, so they don't have to look at and think about problems that come up, some of which can take some Serious Thinking and even Investigation, are actually helping lead the guy down the rosy path. It inflates the guy's ego while, at the same time, not providing the actual support he needs to continue to do a good job. That necessary support includes friends who will criticize, as well as lend a hand. --Abd (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean he "was" the brain of Wikibooks? (Whatever that means, "the brain".)  I hope that his brain serves him well outside of Wikimedia Foundation projects.  That's a positive, favorable, encouraging farewell! -- Thekohser (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't make him feel like staying. -Arlen22 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Jimbo
Regarding your recent edit. I appreciate your intention was not to stir up trouble, but this edit comes across as purely attacking the integrity of one of our former users. I would ask you to avoid such edits in the future, they are by their nature disruptive and are likely to result in a block, which is some place none of us wish to return to. A good rule of thumb might be: if your tempted to start a post with "I don't want to stir up trouble", then you should probably avoid that post. Thenub314 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree, Greg. Making that comment shows that you were aware that your post would create the appearance of trying to stir up trouble. Otherwise, why would you deny it? If you actually want to avoid stirring up trouble, then pay attention to that as an alarm bell. That doesn't mean that you should not raise an important issue, but that, given all the history, perhaps you should consult with others first, before barging ahead, or be extraordinarily careful about asking yourself the question, "Why am I doing this?" Was the purpose to suggest that Wikibooks start hosting video game manuals? I think that if you were to get really honest with yourself about the purpose there, it really was to "stir up trouble." You may have all the noble reasons in the world for doing this, you may believe that we would all want to know about actions taken with a conflict of interest, but, after all, this was three years ago and this isn't the place to do anything about those old actions, except for the question I mentioned, or about, as I shifted the issue there, how Wikibooks makes decisions, which should not be heavily influenced by a single person, no matter how respected. Thanks for your careful consideration of this. By the way, what do you think about the fact that Barack Obama wasn't actually born in the U.S.?
 * Just kidding! But that is, in fact, almost as relevant to Wikibooks today as what you brought up.
 * You have plenty of other places, much more visible than that Talk page, which hardly anyone watches, to bring up these old issues if you want. Please don't waste the opportunity you have here to continue to make positive contributions to this community. That will, in fact, help your overall cause of ethical reform. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason my statement of several facts in that post would "stir up trouble" would be that people are uncomfortable with disconcerting facts being presented. If the Wikibooks architecture and community are so vulnerable to uncomfortable facts, then we might as well just get this over with, and someone hand out the block of my account immediately. Some people have engaged constructively on the general topic of "what do we link to, and what do we suggest as alternatives?", thanks to my comment that wasn't intended to stir up trouble. It's up to you whether it stirs up trouble, not me. I viewed it as a disconcerting fact.  Sort of like when I pointed out this page to Gil Penchina today (via private e-mail), I didn't intend to stir up trouble; I intended to clean up the Internet. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Even if I do share your preoccupation and see your criticism to the WMF and Jimbo as useful, the format seems to often be confrontational and is again out of scope.
 * As Abd pointed out, that forum is to define that particular policy. You could have used the expressed facts in a constructive way as to make a positive change to the policy, but the question you have put forward should be raised at Meta, even if we reached any conclusion it wouldn't have an effect on the policy nor could we act on it, making the objections people are raising congruent.
 * You could have written the same post in ways that called the same attention to the problems without including the final question that indeed creates the issue Thenub314 points out. With it you create a connection with the expressed facts (that may be erroneous, incomplete and unrelated), jump the need to establish them as valid and related by creating the idea of an intentional and calculated wrong doing. The problem here is not the facts but presentation and location. --Panic (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct, Panic. Thekohser, I assume that you realize that Panic was the prime mover behind your unblock here. The issue is not at all discomfort with facts. Suppose a business meeting of an organization was being held, to determine whether or not to sell a particular piece of property. Someone stands up at the meeting and starts talking about how the decision to buy the property, three years ago, wasn't proper, that there was self-dealing on the part of the then-President of the organization? If you were the chair of this meeting, what would you do? I know you are way more than smart enough to figure this out without a roadmap.
 * On the other hand, if you won't hear what your friends are telling you, well, I can step over to the next room and wash my hands. That isn't a threat, my friend, at all. I consider it my duty to warn a friend when I see him sawing off the limb he's sitting on. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe the limb will hold anyway. But ... is that really a great idea? --Abd (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

email
Dear Greg Kohs. Thank you for your emails. I am not unwilling to answer some questions to you, but I will post such answers to your user talkpage on en.wikipedia (w:en:user talk:Thekohser) so we keep it transparent. I will post some short, very general answers there in some time. --Beetstra (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)