Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 16 February 2010

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, 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 Misplaced Pages failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages community but not by the software development community - 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 
07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Computing Star
		Tothwolf

Nomination for deletion of Template:Misplaced Pages-Books

Template:Misplaced Pages-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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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). Also see --Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually just because its called a comparison of, doesn't make it not a list. See Misplaced Pages: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/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tothwolf

January 2010

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 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harassment. As to any on-wiki harrassment, apparently the Arbitration Committee evaluated these issues at Misplaced Pages: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)