Wikiversity:Colloquium/2010/Thekohser

Moved from Colloquium -- KYPark [T] 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser

 * This Request in a Nutshell:Rename User:Thekohser to User:Thekohser1, then back to User:Thekohser.

My attention was recently brought to an attempt by a Custodian to gradually rehabilitate Thekohser and work towards successful reintegration into Wikiversity. The usage of an alternate account has led to concerns, and I feel that it would probably be more advisable to unlock the currently globally locked account. I have been informed by Adambro that it is possible that a rename of Thekohser to another name, and then a rename back would disconnect the account from SUL, and remove the global lock. I am asking for consensus for a bureaucrat to perform this action, and settle the question once and for all. This would not affect the current block on that account, but if successful, would allow the community to decide if he should be unblocked. Geoff Plourde 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for right now. I put forth what I am looking for at the moment from Thekohser. We need to follow a structure plan for those who were banned to verify their intent to resume editing at this community in an appropriate manner. Too many people are jumping from A to C while ignoring B. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My request has to do with the global lock, not the local block. I am led to believe that the global lock can be undone through two renames. If this is the case, we can have these users rehabilitated through their original accounts, rather than having them use alternate accounts. Geoff Plourde 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Geoff. That maneuver has just been demonstrated to work.  The global SUL lock can indeed be locally defeated, thus restoring home rule to the projects.  User:Moulton 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I note Ottava's comments at User talk:Ethical Accountability suggesting that Thekohser makes contributions via that talk page. That is similar to Abd's suggestion for Thekohser to demonstrate useful contributions beyond his talk page. However, I would question the value of either in really showing whether it would be appropriate to unblock Thekohser. I am not in any doubt that Thekohser could make useful contributions if he so wished. It isn't clear to me that anyone has suggested he wouldn't. The issue of whether he should be unblocked is more to do with his behaviour and his judgement in considering what may or may not be appropriate topics to cover on Wikiversity. Thekohser can and has as part of Abd's procedure, shown that he can make useful contributions but I'm not sure what that or contributing via his talk page really achieves. If contributing usefully is the requirement for Thekohser or anyone else to be unblocked then we might as well unblock him now since he or anyone else could play along and pass that test if they wanted to be unblocked. The question is not whether he would or could make useful contributions. The question is whether they would be overshadowed by other issues, such as the way he interacts with others or his judgement in assessing the appropriateness of a particularly topic. What we really have to do is to assess his behaviour and consider whether it would be a problem. What was history of contributions before the block, during the block, and what is the current position now? Where there have been issues, do we think he has changed or can we develop measures to deal with any such issues reoccurring? My personal opinion is that Thekohser shouldn't be unblocked. That view is formed on the basis of his contributions before he was blocked, his conduct whilst he was blocked, and a judgement of his current position. I think I have previously explained my view of his past contributions, both whilst blocked and before that, but perhaps I should explain my judgement of Thekohser's current position. It has been my view for a long time that Thekohser's sudden enthusiasm for Wikiversity is less about developing useful learning resources and more about trying to win one over on Jimbo, who was responsible for the original block and with whom Thekohser seems to have had a long running feud. This was today reinforced by another of Thekohser's comments on Wikipedia Review where he's said "...just settle the matter between me and my nemesis Jimmy Wales, once and for all. If I "behave" on Wikiversity, I win and Jimmy loses. If I can't "behave", then I lose and Jimmy wins. If I "behave", but then Jimmy re-introduces himself into the battle, then I really, really win and Jimmy really, really looks like a pathetic loser." So to conclude, my position is that Thekohser shouldn't participate here but, if there is community consensus that he should be allowed, that he use his original proper User:Thekohser. I also don't believe the experiments to determine whether he can or will produce some useful content are particularly useful in determining whether he should be unblocked. If the community believes that he will behave appropriately then he should be unblocked. Adambro 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Thekohser did nothing wrong. He should be unblocked/unlocked immediately, asked to forgive the horrible treatment he has been subjected to by misguided Wikimedia functionaries and allowed to return to full participation at Wikiversity. An end should be put to the barbaric and disruptive practice of blocking Wikiversity community members. It is obvious that those who abuse their sysop tools by imposing unjustified blocks can't be trusted beyond blocking obvious vandals. All other block decisions need to be made by community consensus. --JWSchmidt 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Adambro. I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling. Even if I did see the worth in rehabilitation, I just don't think the Wikiversity community is currently robust enough to be able to absorb the kinds of drama that they are associated with. Wikiversity has been deeply damaged by Moulton's arrival in 2008 and the subsequent failure to 'manage' his presence. (JWSchmidt is entirely wrong in suggesting that any of this is due to a gang of Wikipedians or rogue admins/bureaucrats, as he is wont to claim.) I would much rather we focus our efforts on rehabilitating the Wikiversity community - to come to consensus about what we want to do here and what we're about. Those with track records of trolling, or with points to prove, will not help that process. I've always wanted Wikiversity to be an open, tolerant and welcoming place, but long and painful experience tells me that there are some people whose presence will not be conducive to such conditions. Cormaggio talk 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cormaggio, Neither do I know why some people are so keen to "follow the lead of" the number one troll on wikiland... [and so on, practically verbatim.]  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulton and Thekohser, both of whom have long track records of trolling" <-- Cormaggio, your track record for accusing people of trolling is now a matter for community review. Cormaggio, please list examples of Moulton's trolling or retract your accusation that Moulton has a long track record of trolling." "I don't know why some people are so keen to "rehabilitate" people like Moulton and Thekohser" <-- I agree, since they have done nothing wrong. The user accounts of Moulton and Thekohser should be unblocked/unlocked and they should be allowed to return to normal participation as Wikiversity community members. "Wikiversity has been deeply damaged by Moulton's arrival in 2008" <-- This is a misrepresentation of events. Moulton participated at Wikiversity as an expert in online learning communities and a valued member of the Wikiversity community. He was then viciously harassed by sock puppets from Wikipedia on a declared mission to get Moulton banned. A gang of Wikipedians disrupted Wikiversity. Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus by someone who had been gamed into taking unwise action. Wikiversity needs to protect itself from such outside sources of disruption and protect honest and innocent Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton might have been biased, but wikiversity does allow bias so long as points of views are made explicit. The pan-wikimedia saga is long, but within the wikiversity epsiode, it was the still-unclaimed sock puppet User:Salmon of Doubt who started to turn the soup sour, firing the first rounds of personal attacks, and saying up front that his goal was to get moulton banned on wikiversity.  He subsequently got custodial tools for a time and then disappeared.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We know who Salmon of Doubt was. I received the information in 2009. Apparently, SB Johnny had the info from the beginning. I can't reveal things publicly on Wikiversity but there is something on Wikipedia Review that says who the socks were. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrongo! Didn't know then, don't know now. I'll ask on WR though, because I've always wondered! --SB_Johnny talk 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have IRC logs from the involved parties saying otherwise if anyone wants to see how SB Johnny is blatantly lying again. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Horse hockey. I assure you: have no idea who he/she was. --SB_Johnny talk 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you only had dozens of shared page edits with them, worked with them regularly at WR, chatted with them under both names on IRC in multiple channels, and they stated that you were told by them and by KC who they were. Funny how you suddenly feign ignorance. It is amazing to look back at your interaction under his primary name on WR to see how it all makes sense, especially regarding your statements with him about Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above exchange leads me to a conclusion that without some radical restructuring, Wikiversity is hopeless. Not useless, but unreliable. I will be considering what actions might possibly improve the situation, but it's looking like the damage of 2008 and March 2010 has cut way too deeply, it might not be possible to recover. Cormaggio, it's not about rehabilitating this or that specific user, but about rehabilitating Wikiversity as a community. From my point of view, it's nearly dead, and I could show sign after sign of that. --Abd 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is a vibrant community but it is being trampled by three individuals who are unwilling to stop with their games and trying to drive Wikiversity into the ground. If you notice, those same people started a competing community, so it is even in their interest to do that. Without them around, it would be far more peaceful and normal life would resume. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you disagree, Ottava. However, I see more damage being done here, by active participants here, other than the "three individuals" -- who are? -- than they could possibly be causing. My comment was based on your participation in the exchange, tossing gas on the smouldering fire instead of acting to heal it or at least being careful not to make it worse. There is no justification for your accusations against SBJohnny, even if they are true, which I find doubtful on the face. Starting netknowledge.org is an essential step: basic principle in securing academic freedom: don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm registered there and I intend to participate and help it be successful, which will not harm wikiversity and should, in fact, help it. Someone who expects otherwise has missed a very important educational principle: one size does not fit all, one set of rules and one oligarchy cannot preserve freedom, diversity is crucial. That is true within the WMF and true beyond it. --Abd 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't been around long enough to know who are standard members, how they act, and the rest. You have only been around during the summer and only in areas with the trolling and disruption. If you want to say I have no evidence, fine. I don't need to provide evidence to you about it. We aren't here for "academic freedom" or whatever fake concept used to justify some nonsense campaign. Moulton et al have their project. They can stay there and do whatever they want there. Their use of these serves has been reaffirmed as merely disruptive and they have never been part of the true academic community here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "three individuals who are unwilling to stop with their games and trying to drive Wikiversity into the ground" <-- This is an unusual statement, possibly indicating a failure of someone to assume good faith with respect to other Wikiversity community members. In the interest of allowing the Wikiversity community to discuss and understand the threat that you perceive, Ottava Rima, please list these three individuals. "they have never been part of the true academic community here" <-- Ottava Rima, do I correctly understand you to be claiming that Moulton has never participated constructively at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Demanding me to list the three individuals when they are blatantly clear to you is exactly why so many people in this community have lost patience for you. I started out this as your biggest defender. You worked hard to turn me completely against you. You should be proud. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (&larr; tabs reset)

Ottava, assuming I'm one of those three people, I'll just point out a few things.

First, I think it's rather snooty of you to say I've "never been part of the true academic community here". I originally got involved here because I wanted to see if Original Research was feasible on a wiki for something like the Bloom Clock. The experiment worked to some degree, but we were never able to get the proper software extensions here to make it really work. (Maybe now that Brion is gone we could ask again, but I don't think the WMF staff is all that interested in WV nowadays.)

Second, I'm not on any campaign at all... in fact the only reason I'm posting today is because you brought me into it (again), and since you've apparently "called the FBI" on me, it's in my interest to respond to your flights of fancy when correction is needed. If you don't want me to respond to you, please just stop bringing me into it.

Finally, NetKnowledge isn't a "competing community" in the sense of a zero-sum game. It's really more or less an experiment to find ways of configuring wikis that will avoid some of the entrenched problems that the WMF's wikis are having due to their particular configurations (and for me, of course, I have better software for the bloom clock).

For the record: I don't want Wikiversity to fail, and I'm not particularly happy about what the "other two" are doing either. However, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them to see things your way. I have better things to do. --SB_Johnny talk 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You were drama mongering and backroom dealing with people on IRC months before Moulton was banned. It seems like you are completely incapable of admitting the sleaze that you have pulled on this community. Go keep your drama on your own site and play your games there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are a Custodian (and therefore in some sense representing the management), you might want to avoid that particular tone, since it's rather hard to tell the difference between your statements and the statements of "the other two" when you do that. No charge for the advice this time. --SB_Johnny talk 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You burnt your bridges here long ago, then you came back to cause disruption against Jimbo. You aren't welcome. You have done a lot to try and bring down this community, probably more than anyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not welcome by whom, exactly? --SB_Johnny talk 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "they are blatantly clear to you" <-- You can call me clueless, but I honestly do not know who you think is, "trying to drive Wikiversity into the ground". You seemed to suggest that Moulton is one. His goals are listed on his user page. Ottava Rima, I think it would be best if you listed the three individuals so that the Wikiversity community does not have to guess. --JWSchmidt 22:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked Ottava Rima for incivility in the above discussion, continued after warning, see Request_custodian_action Please do not discuss this block here, and perhaps this whole sequence should be moved to the Talk page or even deleted. But I'll leave that to someone else. The Colloquium page has been going south rapidly. --Abd 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)