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)

“ 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 Cybertongue¹

1. ^ Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 13, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

---

could you make your farewell diff something other than one that starts off with "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either." i am not interested in being attacked in your retirement message. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, for your information the attack of the aggressive deletionists goes unnoticed by the Wikipedia community but not by the software development community [2] - 83.249.210.228 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Java and Portal

I told you man that they would get you. Never revolt against the powers that be... While I reckon you could be hard to work with at time, I thank personally for helping me in the past. I herein grant you this barnstar for your contribution to this project. May you rest in peace. --  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Computing Star
		Tothwolf

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikipedia-Books

Template:Wikipedia-Books has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of IRC Clients

There are already 3 people calling for a more discriminate list on the talk page. Only listing notable clients is a move in that direction. If you'd like to contribute to that discussion you're free to.--Crossmr (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:NOT#DIR which is linked from WP:LIST Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Entries on lists or comparison articles are required to be "famous" which in wikipedia terms means notable. If they don't have an article they don't belong on the list.--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:NOT and no, entries are not required to be notable on their own per WP:NNC. The article is a Comparison not a list such as this horribly constructed thing in my userspace (userfied). [3] Also see [4] [5] [6] [7] --Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually just because its called a comparison of, doesn't make it not a list. See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions A multi-columned list is still a list. Even if it is being used for comparison.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll halfway agree with you— detailed comparison tables make something a comparison, which is what this is. You should spend some time reading the other links I provided before getting too involved in this one though. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read them, are you assuming I haven't? Whether its a detailed comparison table or not, it is still a list of objects. Whether you have it as one giant table or multiple tables. it theoretically could be one giant table which still makes it a list per that description.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

MFD discussion

You may be interested in this MFD discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

notification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tothwolf

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for for violating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Tothwolf restricted as described at [8]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tothwolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Evidence pertaining to [9] has been emailed to Sandstein.

Decline reason:

I have been going over the events which led up to the block and the circumstances of the editing restrictions that you were given in the first place for about the last forty-five minutes or so. I feel that Sandstein's judgment in issuing the block was sound. You were not blocked for the information you presented, but rather the manner in which you presented it. I see no reason to remove or modify the block at this time. Trusilver 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In reply to your e-mail, I am not interested in the evidence as such (which is just a long list of links to external sites which am not in a position to evaluate), or in your dispute with Theserialcomma. I blocked you because you made wide-ranging accusations without providing any relevant evidence first.  Sandstein  09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't COI/N for dispute resolution? As best I can tell, that is the best place for such concerns and I can't see how my post there violates what you linked to. I asked for someone uninvolved who is familiar with BLP and NPOV issues to review an article after it was edited by someone who had been berating and ranting about the subject of the BLP (during the time in which they edited it) on their blog (including linking to it and other related pages they were editing/creating). --Tothwolf (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your second e-mail, with respect to the alleged off-wiki harrassment, I strongly advise you to proceed as recommended in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harassment. As to any on-wiki harrassment, apparently the Arbitration Committee evaluated these issues at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Findings of fact and I am in no position to doubt their findings. If you believe that you continue to be harrassed on-wiki after the closure of that case, you should make a report to an appropriate administrators' board such as WP:WQA, supplying all relevant diffs as evidence.  Sandstein  12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Already have and it doesn't look like anything is going to change. With the ongoing harassment preventing me from editing anything anyway, and now a punitive block I guess I'll just give up editing for now (maybe someone can convince me to return later). I think my time will be better spent elsewhere and on other projects where harassment is actually taken seriously. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=344695263

ANI

I have made a report on the current incident to ANI. I have requested that you and Theserialcomma both answer questions regarding the off-wiki email claims. See [10]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further this - Theserialcomma asked, in a comment on JBsupreme's talk page, that I ask you not to email Theserialcomma any further. Though I am asking the questions on the ANI report to try and clarify the situation of what has actually happened, please going forwards respect Theserialcomma's request and don't send any future emails to them.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The only emails I've sent Theserialcomma have been messages saying "Leave me alone". If she will leave me alone and allow me to return to editing computing and technology articles there will be no reason for either of us to have any contact with one another. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement of support

For whatever it's worth, I think you're clearly in the right as far as this ridiculous garbage on WP:ANI about you goes. Jtrainor (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio

I will not restore it — the article was deleted rather than being userfied, and the last version of the article is identical to the last version of the page I deleted yesterday. G4 applies to content in all namespaces, and this is not the "short biography" idea included at Wikipedia:User page. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tothwolf. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Koman90 (talk), A+ (Verify) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Another editor has made a request concerning you at WP:AE#Tothwolf. You may want to reply.  Sandstein  20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Why am I not surprised... Thanks for letting me know. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks at AE. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't a personal attack. If this keeps up, Sandstein, I'm either going to end up leaving in the project in disgust or end up a non-productive editor (I haven't been able to edit that much anyway due to the harassment). Sandstein, I suggest you rethink your block here because unlike last time, I will challenge this one. Allowing Theserialcomma to continue to harass other editors is also only going to escalate matters. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tothwolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

per appeal below

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=per appeal below |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=per appeal below |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=per appeal below |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Appeal by Tothwolf

Appealing user

Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tothwolf (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Block: [11]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.

Statement by Tothwolf

Sandstein blocked my account after I made this reply [12] which he considered a personal attack [13]. I'm not really sure how he could consider it a personal attack and despite my queries, he did not elaborate beyond that general description. My reply there is certainly not friendly (I pointed out how Theserialcomma continues to make personal attacks against myself, edit things I've written and post them as quotes, etc) but I don't feel that it should be considered a personal attack.

Sandstein has since extended the block after I challenged the initial block via email, where I also vented over the frustration over how the ongoing harassment issues with Theserialcomma have thus far been handled. I honestly don't know how Sandstein could construe my venting said frustration via email and turn it into "I consider this a credible threat of systematic vandalism." but per [14] this is his reasoning.

The way Sandstein has handled this so far certainly does have me reconsidering why I've ever bothered to contribute to Wikipedia and could easily result in driving an otherwise active good-faith contributor away from Wikipedia. I consider Sandstein's comments where he claims I made "a credible threat of systematic vandalism" to be quite offensive and his comments are certainly not backed up by my contribution history [15] or account permissions [16].

Result of the appeal by Tothwolf

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Block discussion AN/I request

Stale

I ask that an uninvolved administrator initiate an AN/I discussion regarding the block noted above and Theserialcomma's long term harassment of myself and other editors.

A great amount of detail can be found in these links: [17] [18] [19]

Note when Theserialcomma's harassment of myself first began: [20]

This has been going on for nearly a year: [21] [22] (full discussion) [23] (full report)

Theserialcomma's behaviours have been discussed in many past AN/I discussions (many of which are not related in any way to me). There are way too many of these to link to them individually: [24]

Theserialcomma's own contribution history: [25]

If this cannot be resolved, someone may as well "indef" me because this is exactly what Theserialcomma has been trying to have done to me all along.

--Tothwolf (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can gladly copy any statement or request to ANI, but in light of the below I assume you might want to adapt the above. I have no idea what this is all about, but would suggest that you focus less on the other side in whatever dispute you two are having, per WP:NOTTHEM. The above statement is not going to help you. Amalthea 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, thanks. Re below, it appears that Sandstein just took something out of context and overreacted. If an uninvolved admin would please step in here I really would appreciate it. Sandstein initially took issue with my reply here [26] and then apparently the email where I challenged his block over that comment, in which I also vented some of the frustration over the long term harassment from Theserialcomma which still has yet to be addressed. Truth be known, maybe I should just create a new account as to not have to put up with Theserialcomma anymore... As noted above, this has been going on for nearly a year and I firmly believe I'm within my right to be frustrated that this is still going on. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail threatening vandalism

This is to confirm that I am in receipt of your e-mail in which you announce that you consider becoming "a vindictive, nasty troll" like Grawp if what you describe as misconduct by others remains condoned. I consider this a credible threat of systematic vandalism. In prevention of this, I am indefinitely blocking you from editing Wikipedia. You may appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Administrators reviewing any unblock request should consider that this complements the 72h arbitration enforcement block noted above, so any unblock should not occur before the expiration of that 72h block.  Sandstein  10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)