Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 29 May 2009

Jimbo Wales, on Gregory Kohs

For the record, having reviewed the situation, I think that I acted harshly and hastily; I would not do the same today. I believe that my actions got Gregory off on the wrong foot in the community, and that tensions which he feels today have their roots in my action. I hope that in some small way my apology is helpful to him, and to the rest of the community, in looking for a resolution of longstanding conflicts.

-- Jimbo Wales (December 18, 2008)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jacobson's

I have nominated Jacobson's, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacobson's. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alexius08 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How is that working out for you, Alexius08? -- Thekohser 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Alexius aware that you were community-banned, then unblocked by Jimbo, only to be re-community banned despite Jimbo's olive branch? If so, this is a really mean thing to do. Ripberger (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and they say Misplaced Pages has no sense of humor :) -Pete (talk)

I thought I was community-banned only once? Jimbo's unblock was of his own block. Or, is a block by Jimbo a de facto "community ban", since the community follows his every decree like a bunch of sheep? Here's my deal -- you point me to two distinct community ban !votes, and I'll donate $25 to any charity of your choosing that is not headquartered at 39 Stillman. -- Thekohser 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's not much of a practical difference between being community-banned once and being community-banned twice. :) --Conti|✉ 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. It's at my expense, as usual, but I'm in a good mood tonight. -- Thekohser 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I get Misplaced Pages's definition of "ban" and "blocks" mixed up. All I recall was the MyWikiBiz thing (which you stopped after talking with Jimbo), Jimbo set you free, and then your new account was banned for reasons that were never clear as Jimbo had let you go previously. I sincerely hope you do get unblocked. You should have never been banned to begin with. Sincerely, Ripberger (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ripberger. Your sentiments are shared by about 40% of the VIPs around here, but the other 60% would prefer that I stay "community banned", on the basis of a ban nomination that was pushed through by an admin who plagiarized my work, then denied it, then deleted the diffs that proved his culpability. Go figure. The ethical ones get banned by the unethical ones who hold the toolkit. -- Thekohser 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh-uh. About 10% want you to stay banned (mainly those who remember how damn annoying your socks were in 2007); about 10% want you unbanned, either on the basis that you were unfairly blocked and from your activities at MWB since have demonstrated that you do know what you're doing, or on a more cynical "better inside the tent pissing out" principle; the remaining 80% don't care. What keeps you banned is a mixture of apathy, inertia, and the fact that those who do think you should be unblocked (including me) don't have the time for the inevitable long drawn out fight. This is a hobby, not a job, and you're in the unfortunate position that (Jimbo and perhaps a couple of others aside) none of those who want you unblocked are the type to hang round noticeboards arguing the matter for weeks on end. – iridescent 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's about right. Iridescent, the one thing you left out that seems pretty relevant to me, is that whenever pressed, Greg disavows even the desire to be unbanned, or to resume editing Misplaced Pages. I have no interest whatsoever in working on someone's behalf, when they haven't really bought into the project to begin with.

That, combined with the fact that the last round (that I'm aware of) of negotiations had Greg using his good-faith editing as a bargaining chip (i.e., with the implication that good-faith editing was only guaranteed up to a certain date). That struck me as oddly incompatible with a goal, that is pretty important to me personally, of building an editing community that is largely rooted in trust.

Greg, for whatever it's worth -- I keep an eye on this page, from time to time, because it can be entertaining, and because I like you as a person, in spite of whatever drama has surrounded your Misplaced Pages experience. I also think your various Misplaced Pages-related projects are interesting. I can't say I usually agree with what you're trying to do, but you're always up to something that makes me think. -Pete (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz, you are a banned user. You are not allowed to edit any pages of this encyclopedia, including your talkpage. Now you can't edit your talkpage. If you want to appeal against the ban, please contact the Arbitration Committee. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, your action here appears to me as hostile and rude, AdjustShift. Greg may be a banned user, but there's no need for this kind of treatment. He is not disrupting the project in anyway with his commenting here. I believe he has tried to get into contact with the Arbitration Committee, but he's received no reply. Maybe it is against policy to deny him his ability to edit his talkpage, but your method and tone towards Greg was not necessary, particularly with your "Have a Nice Day!" jab after you banned him from his own talkpage. It is exceptionally difficult for me to assume good faith in your action here. Ripberger (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)