User talk:Thekohser/2007

STOP!

Do NOT leave comments here at this time

This account was indefinitely blocked by a Wikipedia Admin who felt that it was, at least potentially, too controversial. There was the potential for sockpuppetry, being that this is/was a "personal" account, and the owner had an "enterprise" account at MyWikiBiz. If you wish to talk with Gregory Kohs, please contact his e-mail: greg@centiare.com. Now that the MyWikiBiz User and Discussion pages have been "courtesy blanked" by User:Jimbo Wales, the block on this account is under appeal (via personal e-mail to the admin who blocked it).

• User talk pages are there for leaving comments. Telling people not to leave comments violates yet another of the community's mores, WP:OWN. Just one more thing you don't "get", eh? Guy (Help!) 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Way forward?

[xpost from WP:CN] Followup. Gregory, it's clear there's too much bad blood between you and the community for the community to be comfortable welcoming you back. You've created all sorts of accounts which sooner or later gravitate to the same types of discussions where you try to push WP in a direction where a significant part of the community is not willing to go, maybe not now and maybe never. Because you do this, these accounts get "found out" and blocked. You correctly sense anger and maybe glee in some of the blocks, and you get more and more frustrated, your words get more and more strident, and the situation deteriorates. While I'm sure the process hounds will dislike this suggestion, if you really want to participate in Wikipedia, I think you should create (or choose) an account, not tell anyone what it is, and spend 3 months learning what the community thinks, warts and all, by participating in a completely uncontroversial way. Even though you'll technically be violating a ban, nobody will care or know if you're not being disruptive. If you can't resist and gravitate back to your old behavior like a moth to flame, you will get burnt -- the sock will be blocked. Martinp 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Limited unblock

Welcome back, Greg. This is a limited unblock for the purposes of arbitration. You're welcome to post to WP:RFAR and its talk page with regard to requesting a case between us, and if the Committee agrees to hear the proposal you can post to the case and its talk pages when it opens. What happens after that is up to the Committee.

Thanks, Durova. I appreciate the gesture of allowing this unblock; however, in the spirit of disclosure, I have a bad feeling that this is more an effort to provide yourself a forum for our dispute which will be inherently biased toward your point of view (as opposed to our off-Wikipedia hijackings of SEO blogs/boards, where we seem to have been neutrally assessed by the non-Wikipedia community).

I still don't understand why we need an official arbitration for this. You stated in February that I "gave misleading information to journalists". I asked that you publicize the evidence that led you to this conclusion. Citing your concerns about your anonymity, you declined to offer any public disclosure of your evidence; however, you did e-mail supporting documentation to AP reporter Brian Bergstein. He concluded that the evidence had no bearing on his article about MyWikiBiz, and therefore, I'm left wondering why haven't you redacted what you said?

Anyway, if the Wikipedia arbitration is the only way you'll willingly face scrutiny, I'll comply -- but it's going to have to wait a week or two. I'm far too busy right now to pursue this. In the interim, assuming good faith, I will limit my contributions to Wikipedia from this temporarily unblocked account to my Talk page and to the arbitration thingy that you pointed me to.

Seriously, I don't want to do battle with you. You're a very accomplished editor of Wikipedia. I respect that very much. I just wish you wouldn't have said that I lie to journalists (in so many words); but now that it's out there, I can only wish that you'd redact it, or at least modify it enough to where we could both accept the statement. For example, "In my opinion as Durova, Gregory Kohs didn't disclose everything about his subsequent participation in Wikipedia that he could have disclosed to AP reporter Brian Bergstein. Admittedly, Bergstein has indicated that this information wasn't relevant to the story he wrote, but I feel that it does speak to Mr. Kohs' incomplete portrayal of his experiences on Wikipedia." Could you live with that? I could. I know it's a lot more wordy than "He gave misleading information to journalists"; but I contend that "failing to disclose all possible information" is quite different than "giving misleading information", and I likewise see a difference between "Brian Bergstein" (in the singular) and "journalists" (in the plural).

If you could agree with the above statement and strike and replace your original comment, we could avoid this whole arbitration time-consumption. You could even re-block this account if you want.

Whew! --Thekohser 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No more arguing on Search Engine Watch, for God's sake

You've had five months in which you could have e-mailed a request to an arbitration clerk, yet you prefer to air your grievance at various online forums hit-and-run style. -- Durova, at Search Engine Watch

---

The only reason I've aired the grievance in various online forums is because I asked you to e-mail me the "evidence" you have against me, even from a throw-away e-mail address, so that I could evaluate it myself. I even said in a couple of places that maybe you do have some substance against me, at which point I would have sheepishly tucked tail and slinked away.

However, you have repeatedly refused to contact me privately, so I took it public. Then you make me out to be the vulnerable one, as you sit like Daffy Duck behind an anonymous character called "Durova". So silly.

(If I may paraphrase someone...) If I make a very compelling case to ArbCom, I guess it's not inconceivable that they might "remind" you to be "careful" in making "comments" about identifiable people. But I will never get an apology from you, or the ArbCom, in a million years. It just isn't part of Wikipedia's genetic makeup.

So, I would dutifully prepare my "case" for ArbCom, and then I bet they decline to even hear it. Then what? You're still Daffy Duck saying that I lie to journalists, when the only journalist I've spoken to in the past 7 months says he found no basis for your claim, as it pertained to his story. I didn't tell Brian Bergstein that an ancestor of mine was adopted into the Kohs family, so I'm not "really" of the Kohs bloodline. Does that mean I "gave misleading information to journalists"? I didn't tell Bergstein what I had for lunch on April 14, 1981. Does that mean I "gave misleading information to journalists"? I didn't tell Bergstein that I continued to contentiously edit with sockpuppets Wikipedia discussions about paid editing. Does that mean I "gave misleading information to journalists"? Without you telling me what your supposed evidence is for your claim, the world is equally in the dark about all three scenarios.

You keep talking about how my reputation is being harmed by my standing up to an anonymous bully who's all-too-full of her sense of authority. Seems to me, your reputation is at least hinted at over at Encyclopedia Dramatica. As abusive a site as that is, what does it say about your reputation that someone could ever have been motivated to create such a hateful page? I wonder if the woman who E.D. claims is Durova would ever pursue a defamation claim against the owners of that site? Or, is she too "scared", as the kettle recently called me?

Seriously, this is enough nonsense on Search Engine Watch. I'm going to copy this to my Wikipedia user page. Continue the discussion there, if you insist.

--Thekohser 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, again

Greg, you've had your chance. As I'm sure you know, you're welcome to e-mail the arbitration clerks if you ever change your mind about opening a case request. Until then we'll have to agree to disagree. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To whom would you suggest I direct my e-mail? --Thekohser 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)