Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Breaching experiment/trolling by Wikipediocracy community in violation of WP:POINT

User Receiver 0814 and user User:The Rewarder are engaging in nominally paid editing [1], as the payee and payer respectively. thumb|Would you kill a kitten to preserve NPOV?

To muddy the ethical/moral dimensions the "rewarder" has promised to ~~not kill a kitten~~ pay $5 to the WMF if the edits are performed and stand for 15 days.[2]

The intention appears to be to establish precedent for paid editing, or to illustrate that Wikipedia is a financially corrupt entity that accepts editing against its policy, if there is a financial reward, or that Wikipedia rejects perfectly valid contributions, both monetary and content, for spurious reasons.

No doubt the relevant threads on Wikipediocracy can be referenced by someone with more time than I, but it is certain that the "usual suspects" including "Mr 2001" and Tarc would be aware of this.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC).

Testimony and hearsay helpfully provided by SB_Johnny[edit]

Meh to the above

If "The Rewarder" was the Wikipediocracy participant (call him "G.K.") that Mr. Farmbrough thinks it is, offering to give $5 to the WMF would be anathema to him. Actually I'm pretty sure it would be anathema to pretty much any Wikipediocracy participant that would bother with a "breaching experiment" (it's really not much of a challenge to breach WP, after all, so what's the point?).

I assume I don't need to bother with diffs for this, though I'll leave you with a logical diff: if I were the type to have sock accounts, I certainly could have provided the same testimony and hearsay using one of those, though of course it wouldn't have meant as much coming from an "unknown character", right?

Evidence presented by {Hell in a Bucket}[edit]

My Perspective

This has root in one thing, my comment that was removed by User:Tarc with the edit summary [but this is the adult table. When you can learn to speak like an adult to others, then you can have your placemat back]. I reverted him because at the time ANI had determined there was nothing to be done and that the comment while distasteful to some was not a removable worry. That is a taint on the case consideration because it did cause quite a stir when I made the comment. A short time later, User:Smallbones reverted a banned user Mr. 2001. The banning policy clearly states that for any reason a banned user or blocked user may be reverted without reason. In this case new accounts were popping up to Jimbo's page and these were their first edits. Based on my experience this means at best they were evading scrutiny as a sockpuppet or were a blocked user. I reverted this based on this and another editors suspicion added to the fact that it made sense it was a sock. Tarc came in and reverted well over 20 times stating on their talkpage that they didn't care who they were[3]. Later after a checkuser asked for more information Tarc assumed that this meant that the SPI was failed. The fact is that the evidence was enough that a CU ran the check and didn't find sleepers which isn't always the case and later the three editors in this situation were blocked as obvious DUCKS. Tarc in this showed a battleground attitude and a willingness to edit war and bypass wikipedia guidelines and banning in what is my opinion a trolling attitude. After the first rounds of reverts I had a discussion with Tarc found [4] where he stated that this was a problem with Smallbones, the comment at 1:23 is where he said Smallbones was a bully and whiteknighting etc. As I stated there I did not revert on that occasion again until after I saw the comments made by Tarc here [5] and [6]. Also a little further down you can see the second sockpuppet come to Tarc's page [7] where they acknowledge watching their having knowledge of the previous situation and offering it up to Tarc for their amusement whereupon Tarc makes another statement showing that his later reversion wasn't based on agreeing or taking responsibility for the comment but to "Consider this a trial balloon to see how far these little defenders of the crown will go". During this I was taunted by Tarc in edit summaries up until the point he threatened to take me to Arbcom because of this and attempted to intimidate me that my recent comments wouldn't reflect well so I should be careful. I admit that I let that one threat completely get under my skin and I took it to arbcom as it is it does highlight an issue that seems to me to be clear cut, when we site ban them we don't generally list but you can post on Jimbo's page or you post if it's helpful, in article space sure if they are removing vandalism we wouldn't want to cut off our nose to spite our face but talkpages are a far different animal and this was more the hypothetical trap question then a good faith question to appeal sanctions. Banned means banned, if WP:EVADE only applies to CU confirmed socks or Admin may only remove that great let's say that and move on. This does state the obvious that I am confrontational in nature at times and I understand that this reflects poorly. This is a work in progress so I will add as time goes on despite my reservations. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern by Tarc in summaries alone directed at multiple users that this wasn't a good faith effort

23:27, 5 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (/* Mr. 2001 */ still white-knighting?)
20:23, 6 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (Undid revision 620109318 by Smallbones (talk) - Overzealous reverting caught one of Carrite's posts)

restoring the comment of an editor who is not banned, and encouraging smallbones to stop lying in edit summaries, lest it be considered a WP:NPA violation)

20:21, 14 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (We'll try ONE revert, and see if that's enough to get the serial harasser goes and finds another house to haunt. If not, either I or someone else can bring Smallbones to ANI again, then I'll just re-post this user's concerns to Jimbo's under my own name.)
20:37, 14 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (And now, cheerfully, you can piss off. This is MY question to Jimbo. No one owns the concept, and if a banned user happened to have a good idea, that doesn't poison the well for all-time making it so NO ONE can ever ask it again.)
16:03, 15 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (/* Paid editing and the ToS */ - fear and paranoia)
15:30, 15 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (/* Paid editing and the ToS */ - remove a needle)
15:13, 15 August 2014 (diff | hist) User talk:Jimbo Wales (/* Paid editing and the ToS */ - good luck, sport)
14:24, August 14, 2014 (edit) Tarc (talk | contribs) (→‎You stop, I'll stop: - lol, someone's feelin a little high n mighty today)

Blatant Troll Page and actions by the people reverted

User talk:Spotting ToU with a first edit of [8] . After a SPI is filed on a "new" user comments you for demonstrating how to file an improper SPI. I appreciate that. A reasonable editor can infer from that response that the person has been involved in a few SPI's in the past just based on that comment alone. Later on the now deleted page the editor in question refused to even deny they were the person they were accused of being and after that two user's The Rewarder and the Receiver came up to pose a similar set of ToU's questions on Jimmy's page. Later based on behavioral evidence Spotting ToU's, the Rewarder and The Receiver all were handed out blocks.

Incorrect Evidence presented by others

User:Konveyor Belt states that this was a revert [9] it is not.
Likewise this is a revert but unrelated to the banning issue and if you look I was actually reverting myself [10]

Last minute thoughts

I still intend to curtail a lot of my participation here for the time being, during the interim though I'd like to point out part of the reason for my last two week absence was to observe the behaviors and actions of the other people in this thread. I think that the section headings and comments, and overall attitudes displayed speaks far more loudly then I could have. I have played a part in this issue but I think that overall my part is actually quite small and I hope that the committee looks at the entire situation policy scope included rather then the acceptance comments attitude expressed by 1/3 of the active arbs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Carrite[edit]

Placeholder. Evidence to follow... Carrite (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While one of my posts was hit by some of Smallbones' wild machine gun fire (Aug. 6 revision 620109318, LINK), which I did not appreciate, he corrected the error. I've decided I don't have much to add to move the case forward constructively. I kept this slot open in case Mr. Kohs (an acquaintance or dare I say friend of mine via Wikipediocracy) had anything to say in this case more or less involving him. It seems he does not. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones. Greg Kohs is "dangerous" only in the fervid imagination. You really should redact that malicious assertion. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by S Marshall[edit]

All I want to add is a diff of an RfC close. Here. Hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Smallbones[edit]

Editors are not using the prescribed format on this page

Nobody was using the prescribed format for this page, denying me the opportunity to see what I was accused of. Now they have simply removed all evidence against me.

User:Spotting ToU is a sock of User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser

MyWikiBiz/Thekohser (TK) was first banned on Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales (JW) in 2006 for advertising a paid editing service "Your entire approach to Wikipedia is 100% antithetical to our community values" In 2008 after TK was community banned, the ArbCom provisionally unbanned TK, but soon re-banned him for personal attacks and not fulfilling his promises to help create the encyclopedia. (See WP:List of banned users, under MyWikiBiz) He has also been banned or blocked for long periods at Commons and on Wikipedia-l.

He has stated that he is the same user as the banned Thekohser on Wikipedia, and signed with an IP in the 2001. range [11]
On JW's talk page TK is generally called "Mr. 2001", e.g. Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor.--JW. This name is also used elsewhere [12].
TK posted a list of his admitted sock accounts including User:MyWikiBiz [13]
TK readily divulges his real name, e.g. on his current Commons account, and on his Wikipedia-l posts
He posts widely on his own websites and across the web, attacking JW and Wikipedia, sometimes posing as an unbiased journalist. These postings are trivial to find.
Two major sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyWikiBiz/Archive show that TK has socked from 2006-present. Checkusers recognize that most of the reported socks are likely socks, but that TK uses technical means to avoid identification.
JW identified User:Spotting ToU as "Mr. 2001", Spotting ToU essentially agreed, admitted to being a paid editor and using technical means to avoid detection [14]
Spotting ToU later admitted again to being a sock [15].
Spotting ToU is indefinitely blocked by a checkuser on August 14.
JW removes a TK sock, calling him a "dangerous stalker" and asking other editors to continue to remove TK's edits. [16]

There is no question that this entire conglomerate of socks is the work of one user, TK, and Spotting ToU was a recent sock of his. JW has asked that these edits be removed from his talk page.

Thekohser harasses other editors and is disruptive and dangerous

TK and his websites have long had a well-deserved reputation for harassing Wikipedia editors, including outing them. I'll leave out his websites, except to note that the most recent outing is advertised by one of TK's socks at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_editor_being_railroaded_by_Wikipediocracy.

Just a couple of historical examples of other types of harassment.

[17] JW says that TK is dangerous
%2FThekohser&diff=383523344&oldid=383481170 JW says TK's "primary goal here … has been his primary hobby for several years now - cyberstalking and attacking me in every possible venue.] (the final paragraph of the edit)
[18] An example of e-mail harassment.

TK has also attempted to out me on-wiki.

The first - was oversighted. It's revision 598028075 by 198.178.8.81 on 23:21, 3 March 2014‎ at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-26/Forum.
second time, while also accusing me of desecrating a cemetery.

There has never been a policy on JW's talk forbidding reverting banned editors

It's been alleged that JW has a talk page policy prohibiting editors from deleting comments by banned users. No editors making this allegation have linked to this "policy". Nevertheless:

The 5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales states "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks." Clearly, editors, including me, are allowed to remove material from his talk page.

On May 27, 2014 I stated that I would revert Mr 2001 on-sight on JW's talk page, unless JW asked me not to. JW has never asked me not to.

I've repeated that statement at other times, e.g. on August 5, it was soon reverted by TK [19]

JW has made some direct statements about allowing reverting editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia;

WP:Site ban "should not be changed, I hasten to add, to invite banned users to post here in general!" (here=JW's talk page) [20]

"we are all here to build an encyclopedia while the banned users who post to my talk page generally are not …. ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything is also part of what has made Wikipedia successful." at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales

Tarc sabotages application of WP:Banning policy

In WP:Banning policy "[A]ll editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them."

Tarc denies the applicability to WP:REVERTBAN to "Mr. 2001" (his words) 4 times and insists the JW is the only person who can revert TK, thus harassing JW [21]
Spotting Tou is clearly a trolling, banned user in his original post of the series [22] He is reverted by Hell in a Bucket [23]
Tarc then restores Spotting ToU's edit denying that any user can revert a banned editor, despite the clear wording of WP:REVERTBAN [24]
Tarc denies Spotting ToU is the banned TK [25]
[26] Tarc addressing me "this is a lesson you will be taught one way or the other, I'm afraid."
[27] Tarc stating that I am harassing Spotting ToU simply for reverting him
Tarc calls a simple revert of a banned editor a "witch hunt" [28]
Following a revert, Tarc denies that anyone can revert a banned editor saying that an SPI must first be completed [29]
Tarc says he will stop edit warring *if his preferred version is retained* Also gives the inflammatory reasoning that SpottingTou cannot be reverted because he is not "a rapist, pedophile, or a leper" [30]
[31] Tarc and TK (SpottingTou) discuss strategy. Tarc brags about "pull(ing) off another 25 reverts in 24 hours on one of the most-watched talkpages of the project."
Tarc and TK (as the now blocked User:The Rewarder) discuss their strategy [32]
- TK: "You may be amused by stepping in again" (qualifies as "direction" in WP:PROXYING)
- Tarc: "These boys will have their wagons fixed soon, no worry." referring to HIAB and myself, (qualifies as accepting direction)
- Note that Tarc on the request page for this case [33] describes this as "the user [10] at my talk page asking for assistance, which I granted."
- Tarc is warned by a former supporter that TK is obviously trolling but he goes on to make several reverts anyway.

Response to Konveyor Belt

Your section on "Smallbones reverts Tarc and others" is terribly misleading. Note that each of these reverts is of material that is exactly the same as material written by Thekohser including the signature. Tarc simply reverted my revert of the banned editor. He didn't add or subtract anything from TK's edit, interfering with my revert of TK. According to WP:Banning policy "all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them." Further Tarc says that he is "post(ing) a question or comment on someone else's behalf," breaking the WP:PROXYING rule.
You really do need to state what you think I've done wrong, rather than just give a list of links. For example, you list many times that I reverted banned editors. If you were to accuse me of editing warring on these, I could simply quote to you from the policies WP:BANREVERT, WP:EVADE, and WP:Edit warring (and the repeat there at WP:NOT3RR) and nobody would take your editing warring charge seriously. So that again brings up the question:What are you accusing me of doing?
Please remove my name from the sentence "Tarc and Smallbones both say they will continue to edit war with eachother." and the whole phrase "Smallbones: in his "manifesto" outlined above." The three links provided in the misnamed "manifesto" section say no such thing. I haven't edit warred and I didn't use the words "edit warring" or "edit war" in any of those diffs
I see that you promised User:Penwhale on Sept. 12 that you would provide some context to your list of unexplained links above, but haven't done so. [34]. Please do so before this evidence page closes. I consider such vague accusations to be a type of harassment. It is simply Kafkaesque that you and others can say that I'm doing something against the rules, but won't say what it is. It's even more bizarre that on the request page people cite a specific rule for JW's talkpage that I've supposedly broken, but that rule never existed. Being forced to defend myself against unstated accusations is not part of the ArbCom process, and if you do not state what rules you think I've broken, or at least give some context of what the diffs are supposed to mean in line with your promise to Penwhale, I will ask ArbCom to ban you for abuse of the ArbCom process and harassment.
Note that Konveyor Belt's response was to completely remove his section [35]. Now there are absolutely no accusations made against me on this page.

Response to Devil's Advocate

You say that JW's attitude toward TK has changed since 2012, when he said that he considered TK to be dangerous and requested that other editors revert TK. I'd rather not beat this horse to death - there are people off-wiki to consider, but I can provide 2 diffs from 2014 where JW goes into the same incident in more detail and calls TK dangerous. I'll provide these diffs to arbs if they ask.

Response to Tarc

What you see as peace and quiet on JW's talk page, I see as rowdyism enforced by the threat of a Heckler's veto. It doesn't look to me like anybody can have a serious discussion there anymore.

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_editor_being_railroaded_by_Wikipediocracy throws your theory completely out the window. The thread was started by a sock who lasted just one edit before being bocked. Since TK's goal is to disrupt Wikipedia, I'm afraid your theory can't withstand the test of time. BTW, switching to WP:ANI, it looks like you are in the center of this disruption.

Response to Tarc's last minute section

Responding to the sections consisting of long lists of diffs. I've checked almost all of the first 26 diffs and they all seem to be my edits. The last 5 however, despite a version of my name being in the heading of the section with 3 diffs, are all by HIAB, and are not mine.

Number 4 in the list of 26 was the result of an edit conflict and is described by Carrite above. He seems comfortable with it now. In any case he originally asked HIAB to apologize for it (which he did) and much later you asked me to apologize for it (which I did).

Your list of bare diffs suffers from the same problem that Konveyor Belt's did. There is no assertion, no accusation, of anything that I've done wrong. I have to guess what you are talking about, the arbs have to guess what you're accusing me of. It's not fair to me, or the arbs, or indeed to to yourself to make everybody guess. It is especially unfair to me in that, by responding to a vague or non-existent accusation, I have to assume some sort of order or sense to the accusation, which is forcing me to make the case against myself. I might not understand what you mean, and thus I might be denied the right to respond. Not clearly stating an accusation is an abuse of the ArbCom procedure when it has lasted so long and is not corrected as I've asked and in general is harassment.

In any case, I will guess that you mean to accuse me of WP:Revert war (which is similar to your section title). WP:Revert war is a redirect of WP:Edit warring, which states quite clearly

"Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

This is important enough to that policy that the phrase is repeated in substance lower down in the section known as WP:NOT3RR.

This is not a fluke of one or two sentences in one policy. Rather, the same idea is contained in two other policies: WP:Banning policy and WP:Blocking policy. This is the core concept in banning policy enforcement.

Every revert you listed (except number 4) is of an edit that was 100% written and signed by a banned editor.

You make the same mistake in your section saying that I vowed to edit war. Absolutely not. I told people that I would continue to exercise my option to revert a banned editor, strictly following the rule at WP:REVERTBAN.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Bones that are small reveals the evident inconsistency of Wikipedia's Godking

Smallbones posts this edit from two years ago and this edit from about a month and a half ago. I think it is clear that the Dear Leader has adjusted his approach to He Who Must Not Be Named.--04:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket showed incredible restraint by reverting only three times or fewer in a 24-hour period, rather than like fifteen times

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]--02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He Who Must Not Be Named is vewwy, vewwy dangerous

The greatest threat posed by He Who Must Not Be Named is his role in revealing the COI and paid editing of people and organizations close to the Foundation and our Dear Leader, the very same high wiki-crime for which He Who Must Not Be Named was summarily exiled:

Also, just generally revealing how rampant paid and COI editing is on Wikipedia:

[48]

He Who Must Not Be Named is clearly the single most horrific enemy Wikipedia has ever faced.--18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tarc[edit]

When un-harried, Jimbo, Mr. 2001, and everyone else exist in harmony

HiaB and Smallbones "banned means banned" means that they believe they are doing the project a service, that it is improved by their intervention. However;

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 172#Smart Communications & Wikipedia Zero
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 172#Recognition of Wikimedia Belgium
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 172#Comments on Disruptive Editing
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 173#September 3rd traffic spike.
Even a snarky comment at the end of User talk:Jimbo Wales#How is Internet Slowdown Day different from SOPA? goes by the boards without drama.

Again, it is just an IP. It could be a particular person, but it also may not be. HiaB and Smallbones created the drama where it otherwise would never have existed. When Jimbo's door is left open as intended, it polices itself, without the need of unreasonable force.

Smallbones, HiaB, and revert-warring

Smallbones, 26 reverts over 3 days (20 in the last 24 hours)

HiaB, small reverting during initial foray;

More serious IMO is the reverts of my own post re-posting the allegedly bad user's comment, which was done under a long-standing project "you can take ownership of it" standard;

Smallbones did indeed declare he would edit-war endlessly

(paraphrasing): "If Jimbo says stop I will, if an admin says stop I'll consider it, if anyone else reverts me, I'll revert them." source
(direct); " I do believe that folks should follow the rules, and I will continue to follow them and stand my ground. As I've said from the start, feel free to take it to ANI." - source

Smallbones threatened an editor over an Evidence page filing

"I will ask ArbCom to ban you for abuse of the ArbCom process and harassment." - source

I do not believe this falls under what is proper to do when one wishes to rebut an Evidence filing. Threatening a block is the proverbial "chilling effect".

Evidence presented by Coretheapple[edit]

Thekohser/MyWikiBiz has a history of disruptive socking

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyWikiBiz/Archive, in particular the sock case I filed in MyWikiBiz in May 2014. Note the Risker comment at the conclusion of the May 2014 MyWikiBiz case:

The user behind many but not all of these IPs is known to have access to a wide range of dynamic IP addresses, most of which can be blocked via WP:DUCK. There is no need to file SPIs and checkuser requests; they will not receive a public response even in this egregious a case, because those IPs *are* dynamic and the next time they're used, they'll probably be used by someone completely different. Please don't tag the IP addresses as socks, either, for that reason. Risker (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC) [emphasis added]

It is understandable that editors have reverted obvious TheKohser/MyWikibiz socks on sight rather than going to a sockpuppet investigation, which the administrator above specifically cautioned against doing. The person behind these socks knows that, and has taunted editors with it. See the edit summary here: "AB1:C068 is not banned. If you have evidence of such, take it to a Sockpuppet Investigation." He knows perfectly well that SPIs of his IP socks are fruitless. That is why he uses them.

At one point I felt that this person made useful contributions to Jimbo's talk page. But my patience with him was eroded by his trolling there and my user talk page[49][50][51][52][53], and his disruption of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliance Globalcom, the latter evidently on behalf of a client. All the struck-out IP comments in that AfD are from his socks.

Crude insults are one of MyWikiBiz/TheKohser's identifying characteristics. A sampling:

[54] "Reverting deranged editor who can't tolerate factual conversation"
[55] "your skull is still quite thick, so let's keep learnin' ya."
[56] "You are being a disruptive f*ck head"
[57] "The actual troll is Coretheapple, and his tag-team partner Smallbones"
[58]"Coretheapple, you are a waste of everyone's time. Nothing more."
[59]"Undid revision 609102822 by Favonian (talk)don't be a dick"
[60]"Do you ever think you could get a lot more work done on the encyclopedia if you weren't Jimbo's boyfriend?"
[61]"Undid revision Coretheapple, who clearly needs to get out of his mom's basement"

Clearly this is not a misunderstood person who made a few mistakes and is trying to improve the project, but a businessman who has sought to cynically exploit Wikipedia by a paid editing business, was thwarted by Jimbo, and ever since then has embarked upon a campaign to undermine and disrupt Wikipedia. I have stopped policing Jimbo's talk page for this person because I feel Jimbo has been mealy-mouthed on this issue, and should do his own policing. But let's not kid ourselves by denying that TheKohser/MyWikibiz is disruptive or claiming that all would be fine if he was allowed to evade his ban.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.