User talk:Tothwolf

RETIRED

DISILLUSIONED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, [1] the project is abjectly failing and it is time for me to move on and spend my time on another project. It is sad that the name of the ArbCom case was chosen as it was as that created an inherit bias and may have been a significant factor in it not being properly addressed. I for one hope that I'm completely wrong about Wikipedia failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Updates as of August 2010-2011

Ravenswing was kind enough to point out the above link didn't give the full picture, so those interested should see these discussions for the bigger picture:

• Wikihounding and disruptive editing? (See also: Dueling pianos)
• Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf (C&C warning for parts of this discussion which turned into a WP:BOOMERANG)
• Down the Rabbit Hole (Material linked to during the above two discussions)
• Harassment of Tothwolf by Theserialcomma
• Blocked: personal attacks, baiting and hounding
• Blocked: loss of talkpage access
• Special:Contributions/Theserialcomma
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma/Archive
• On the subject of COI
• Personal experience with an editor gaming AE (Statement made during the AESH case, See also VPP discussion)
• What about the issue of "Block is AE block because I say so" (Additional comments made during the AESH case)
• One second blocks
• Case naming (Lengthy and contains many additional links)

• Thoughts on bullying, AfD, and the decline in contributors (February 2012)
• Partial summary of my bullying and cyberstalking experience (February 2012)

In a reply I made in the Dueling pianos discussion I also commented "[...] If their behaviours are not addressed, even if I were to simply "disappear" entirely from Wikipedia, the behaviours that have been documented by both myself and others (both past and present) are going to continue (as they have even during this case) and will continue to be disruptive towards the goal of building the encyclopedia. [...]" [2] which was later documented in the above linked Wikihounding and disruptive editing? AN/I and Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf request made by one of the involved parties.

Much more information is available off-wiki, and those interested may contact me directly. (This is especially true in the case of the long term sockpuppetry from Theserialcomma, for which a large amount of info can also be found in the functionaries-en mailing list archives.) --Tothwolf (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

“	Online hostility targeting adults is vastly underreported. The reasons victims fail to come forward include the belief that online hostility is an unavoidable and even acceptable mode of behavior; the pervasive notion that hostile online speech is a tolerable form of free expression; the perceived social stigma of speaking out against attacks; and the absence of readily available support infrastructure to assist victims. The problem of online hostility, in short, shows no sign of abating on its own. Establishing cybercivility will take a concerted effort. We can start by taking the following steps: First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies. Everyone who is online should have a sense of accountability and responsibility. Second, individuals appalled at the degeneration of online civility need to speak out, to show that this type of behavior will no longer be tolerated. Targets of online hostility should also consider coming forward to show that attacks can have serious consequences.	”
—Jimmy Wales, Keep a Civil Cybertongue

1. ^ Wales, Jimmy; Weckerle, Andrea (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html. Retrieved January 13, 2010. 

---

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tothwolf.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Response to AN comment

You were more than a little grumpy dude. You should know, WQA is not about giving out sanctions or anything like that. It is not a place that gets users in trouble, but a place where incivility is to be resolved through amicable discussion with outside parties. If you acknowledge now that your comments went too far and you don't intend to repeat them then that is all I care about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly, I'm not sure how to even reply to this. Do you realize that others may consider your demeanor off-putting and rude? While you probably are not aware of it, my experience with WQA has not been very positive. In the past it was used as a means to attack me and I've seen it used in this way against numerous editors over the years. As far as my comments go, you really were being majorly disruptive with the MFD, DRV, and repeated AN/I discussion threads. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't "biting off your arm" by noting that I objected to more than you hatting the discussion. You know that was not my sole objection. Should you strike out or amend the misleading comment at AN I will be happy to do the same with my response to that, then you can do the same to the response you gave to that comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying, if you strike out the sentence starting with "You immediately turning around" then I will strike out my response to your comment. Then you can strike out the comment about "biting off your arm" and I will consider the matter settled.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't like the wikilinks I used when I hatted the comment, that much was clear. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For your cordial response to this editor's concerns. The Devil's Advocate (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Just so you know, I have been reading your e-mails, though not responding to them. A few things that I think can be noted on-wiki is that I wasn't basing my actions on anything but my own concerns and observations about the group itself due to interactions I had with them following two separate nominations I made. While members and sympathizers often try to claim North as the issue and not the ARS, it is not my chief concern. One thing I said pretty much as soon as that argument came up is that North is merely a symptom of a larger issue with the ARS. Given the amount of contention I wouldn't be surprised if I can find more than a few people to certify an RfC on this dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured you might be a little busy. That is beginning to sound like you are proposing that ARS itself is somehow a problem? Considering that there are quite a number of ARS members who do not engage in problematic behaviour, unless you have hard evidence, you may really be sticking your neck out on this one. From what I've seen, the individual members of ARS genuinely feel they are improving Wikipedia in whatever subject areas they are familiar, just like all the other editors which make up Wikipedia's community. While there may be individual ARS members with whom certain other editors disagree or tend to get in conflicts with, such things would be considered personal disputes and wouldn't have anything to do with the ARS concept. While it's certainly possible you may be able to get an RFC certified, I'm still not sure if this is a wise idea. If you do end up getting yourself in over your head on this one, I doubt it will stop with a topic ban on AN and there won't be much any individual community member will be able to do to help you. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing is incredibly problematic behavior and I have a hard time seeing how ARS involvement at deletion discussions can be described as anything else, regardless of the intentions of its members. Assuming good faith does not mean assuming good behavior. Saving articles on notable subjects from deletion is certainly a valuable purpose, but leaving biased notices at a page already targeted towards people of a certain POV is not valuable behavior. If you want a bit more idea of my perspective, not complete perspective as I try to adjust my considerations based on new information, you can check out the archived discussion at the village pump, particularly my comments after it got placed there (most of the comments were when the discussion was taking place at ANI). It also might give you a bit more of an idea about the broader community concerns regarding the ARS as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you that ARS is intended for canvassing. As other editors have already discussed and pointed out, ARS is really no different from deletion sorting or any of the other working groups on Wikipedia. You should probably also check out Wikipedia:Article alerts (see Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list) and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for a few more examples. Going with your reasoning, Article alerts for example is nothing more than a vehicle for canvassing WikiProjects for AfD and other XfD !votes.

While there is always a possibility that there could be individual editors within ARS who engage in canvassing behaviours, unless you have evidence of it, others will consider such accusations to be personal attacks. I've seen a few editors "go down in flames" when they tried this, so again I strongly advise you to drop this issue unless you have actual hard evidence of wrongdoing, and if so, you need to file an RFC/U. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That argument has been made a lot, but I don't think there's any validity to it. Canvassing refers to something specific, perhaps the better word to use is "campaigning" since that more accurately describes the behavior. Saying "this article is being discussed at AfD, please help reach a consensus" to a group of people with no clear partisan affiliation is not the same as saying "this article facing deletion is notable and should be rescued, please help save it" to a group dedicated to stopping the deletion of notable articles. One is a neutral notice to a group perceived as impartial, with the other being a call for a group to insure that the article is kept, a group perceived to be favorable towards keeping the article. From what I can tell, most delsorts, article alerts, and other AfD lists essentially just tell people in a given wikiproject that there is a deletion discussion going on within their topic area. That is not what the rescue list does. It is dedicated to a specific outcome in a deletion discussion and tries to persuade people in order to achieve that outcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the wikitable at Wikipedia:Canvassing? As I said above, I simply cannot agree with you. After reading the entire VPP discussion you linked to above, it also appears to work against you. I still think you should drop this before you get yourself into even more hot water. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite familiar with the policy on canvassing. I think message and audience clearly apply in this respect. The messages are not neutral and it is hard to see how they could be neutral under the circumstances. Regardless of what may be said about "deletionists" looking at or maybe joining the group, the audience is clearly meant to be geared towards a certain POV to whom these biased messages are meant to appeal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am curious. Do you really think the appropriate response is to bar me from raising concerns about the ARS and anyone involved with the ARS? Think about it, if I nominate an article for deletion and the ARS jump in and start voting keep while making no significant contributions to the article or addressing my concerns, do you think it is appropriate that I be muzzled from speaking out about it or mentioning this in a DRV of that article should it be kept as a result? Both cases recently have been prompted by incidents such as that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)