QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 22nd May 2010, 1:29pm)
I don't have time for formal requests and submissions and promises to "behave". I'm an adult human being with a steady job at a Fortune 100 media company, a dad, a husband, a website operator, and the corporate secretary for my church. I'm a fairly decent writer and researcher. If you want me to be a part of Meta or of Wikiversity, I am happy to participate in those projects where I see my skills fitting. If you're asking me to promise not to say "ouch" when somebody raps me over the head with a wooden mallet while I'm writing a historical narrative or fixing some grammar errors, I'm afraid I can't make that sort of promise.
Oh, you could say ouch, for sure. The problem is when you say a great deal more than ouch. It's when you say or imply the equivalent of "You're a bunch of idiots." Doesn't matter if it's true or not. It gets people riled up.
Look, you don't have to agree to anything, but if I'm going to go out on a limb for this, I don't want to get covered with collateral damage from your spit.
QUOTE
As for the Meta issue of "this speaker is blocked on several/most/nearly all Wikimedia Foundation projects"... I think the best way to convey that fact (for my own personal delight, since nobody's really reading that speakers list, anyway) would be:
"Kohs offers a point of view and way of expressing it that is so antithetical to the sensibilities of the Wikimedia community and governance structure, that his primary User account is banned from nearly all WMF projects."
I think that has a nice ring to it, and you certainly can't say it's not factual.
Well, I'd quibble with "from nearly all," but maybe it's true if they went around and ran blocks on all the language pedias. I forget how to look at the global account status page. Your global account lock is gone, I believe. I can suggest that this statement be in the listing, as coming from you, and would attempt to put it there unless consensus appears otherwise. Is this the language you want? I'd put in something like "...that he believes is so antithetical .... something clearly attributing the statement, just for insurance. I don't think you are actually that antithetical to the true community, just to the cabal, i.e., the defacto ad-hoc governance structure, which can present a appearance of control for a time, until it turns around and eats them too.
Personally, though, I'd prefer that the statement be more specific and, indeed, more neutral. As it is, it's confrontational and provocative, but, on the other hand, you are substantially correct. (What is the "sensibility" of the community, and how does a governance structure have this sensibility thing? It's individuals which have sensibilities, and where a group is involved, typically some might have it and some don't.)