Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trödel

This RFC is now closed and resolved. Please do not comment here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
I filed a RfA for Val42 a short while ago, and Trödel said that my lack of a substantial history would be an obstacle. I asked him to cite his sources, and he viewed it as a waste of his time. He subsequently banned me from posting any comment on his talk page, as he wrote it off as trolling, and threatened to ban me. I filed an ANI which he responded to by continuing his threats, justifying them by saying I could email him, which he has subsequently forbid me to do, and he began using my edit history as his personal to do list, making sure he agrees with every edit I have ever done. I thought we had agreed, as he agreed to according to his comments, that he would leave my edit history alone, and we would stay way from each other. I took a break from editing, and when I returned, I made two simple edits, one of which was immediately reviewed by Trödel. While this edit was not a deletion, it showed that he was not abiding by the agreement to stay out of my edit history, and I contacted him. he told me that any further comments would be viewed as trolling, and I responded that, as his vulturish watching of my edit history was a disruption, and as such I viewed it as trolling, and I would take action, just as he would against me. He then blocked me for threatening him, and set up an autoblock process that lasted until after his expiration. This was an illegitimate use of admin privelages, and he is abusing his admin powers to try to bully me out of Wikipedia. While I disagreed, i was willing to concede that I may not have been polite as I could have been, and I may have taken his initial comment that I was not fit to RfA a little personally, but his subsequent actions have no excuse. I am left to file this RfC as it is my only course of action.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior
Please note that edit histories are the best evidence of the dispute in this case, as summaries are most vital and direct. as any comment i made was reverted, the edit history is the only evidence of contact.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGreenFaerae&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tr%C3%B6del/Archive_9&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tr%C3%B6del/Task2 -No reason to be spying on my talk page, especially not after banning me from his.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Administrator abuse
 * Bullying
 * Threatening someone, blocking someone without legitimate grounds to do so, etc. is tantamount to nothign elss than bullying.
 * Trolling
 * As defined by Wikipedia, Misuse of process, i.e. his absue of the blocking process as a threat, and They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias., which I believe Trodel was when eh decided he had to "review" all of my edits because he decided I was a bad wikipedian.
 * WP:NPA
 * This can be seen belwo where he clearly misuses the word troll as directed towards the community as a whole with regards to me.
 * WP:STALK
 * Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking
 * His vulture eye on my edit history for the sole purpose of disrupting my wikipedia activities
 * Threats
 * Block threats for contacting him about anything.
 * Targeted personal attacks
 * His egregious misuse of the word troll with regards to me.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)The first link has been archived, but I do not know where to. Viridae might know more as he was handling it.
 * 08:29, 8 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→User:Tro:del) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173 - adding link -- Trödel 16:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGreenFaerae&oldid=99276121
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tr%C3%B6del/Archive_9&oldid=99280527

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * TheGreenFaerae 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Viridae Talk 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I am adding myself because I did indeed have a go at calming this down and it seems to have flared up, hence a failure to resolve the dispute.

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Val42 03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Partially agree (See below)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''


 * Although I feel the block was justified, I acknowledge that another admin should have blocked User:TheGreenFaerae. I agree to not ever block this user again; however I may ask others to block him for improper behavior.

This RFC is part of the fulfillment of his threat.

His claims:
 * 1) Administrator abuse
 * I agree to the self monitoring of never blocking this user again.
 * 1) Bullying
 * Events:
 * Val42 asked for my opinion on his RFA, I stated that a nomination from a new user has risks
 * He harassed me for my view - demanding that I produce "proof"
 * demand   response
 * demand   response
 * demand   response
 * Val42 asked the discussion to be taken elsewhere. TheGreenFaerae responded that he insulted my integrity because he "thought the words had a cool rythym to it that way"
 * demand
 * To which I finally caved with this response
 * In response to the proof he implied that he believed that "basically insulting you and making you pissed off" is a valid way to behave on Wikipedia, and then chastised me for, frankly, telling him things he should have already known if he had reviwed the appropriate Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk pages one is instructed to in making an RfA. This, in my opinion is a direct admission that he wants others to do the work for him and more evidence that my offhand remark in a PS that being nominated by a new user could cause problems was right on target
 * Believing this behavior to be an example that he "thrive(d) on getting good people to (waste time) fight(ing)..." - I asked him to not communicate with me and said "if you do I will block you for trolling"
 * Instead of just leaving me alone like I asked, this user trolled for support by filing an ANI for alleged future behavior that I would make and and now fulfills his email threat to make my life difficult by filing this RFC
 * 1) Trolling
 * He has never provided any evidence of this nor can he
 * WP:NPA
 * While my writing has been pointed I have not made any personal attacks

This user continues to force interactions and responses from me,
 * 1) first by insulting,
 * 2) then by saying things which he admits were calculated to piss me off,
 * 3) then filing an ANI against me for threatening to block him if he continued to insult and impugn my integrity,
 * 4) then emailing me and threatening to reopen the ANI
 * 5) now forcing an RFC instead of just not interacting with me

Finally, he is not willing to put forth the effort needed to even support his accusations. He expects you to figure out what happened without providing any proof other than his allegations

His behavior has been consistently troll-like, as he demands that I, you and others do his research for him, and will not spend his own time reviewing talk pages or edit histories.


 * Personally, I feel bullied by this user who continues to attack my integrity and force me to interact with him when all I have asked is to not leave a message for me on my talk page. If he has problems with my edits he can bring them to the appropirate talk page.

It is he who began the exchange with insults, has tried to get other admins to block me for a future action, and now trolls all of us because I failed to get another admin to block him when his behavior clearly demonstrates the block was justified. -- Trödel 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) This does not mean that you have behaved in any sort of exemplary fashion. You didn't handle it very well either, although arguably better than he did. -Amark moo! 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Djbrianuk
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I haven't got time to dig into this too much, but admins are STRONGLY discouraged from blocking users they are having a personal issue with. Far better to get an neutral admin to look at the situation and decide if a block is warranted. Also even if an RFC is frivolous, an admin can't really get away with saying "This is a waste of time, I'm not going to respond". Again a neutral admin can look at this RFC and decide if it's frivolous or not.
 * The standards of an RFC require 1) that the person filing it notify the parties involved - which this user did not, and 2) that no response is necessary - in fact the page will be deleted if it is not certified in 48 hours. Thus there is no reason to respond until then. I merely acknowledged that I knew of the complaint (since TheGreenFaerae claims he can't notify me) and indicated I would respond if other users supported the facts he presented. Once it was certified I intended to, and now have, resonded. -- Trödel 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * when he blocked both of my email accounts, and banned me from posting on his talk page, how, praytell, was I to notify him?TheGreenFaerae 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) exolon 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) TheSonofSerenity 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I found this page through a search from Chloe Sullivan, one of the edit areas TheGreenFaerae mentioned, and I believe TheGreenFaerae is a little less polite than he might try to pass himself off as, but Tr%C3%B6del can't just write him off altogther. That kind of terribl ettiquette makes me inclined to vote against him, but I cannot endorse any sumamry but this one. I would recommend it be looked over, maybe not here, but definately looked over by another admin or a beareau.
 * 3) Val42 03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I can agree with the first two sentences from TheGreenFaerae: "I filed a RfA for Val42 a short while ago, and Trödel said that my lack of a substantial history would be an obstacle. I asked him to cite his sources, and he viewed it as a waste of his time." I don't know about the events that transpired after that, so I mostly have to register under this section, agreeing with the first post in this section.
 * 4) In addition, you're not allowed to say "You can't post on my talk page anymore because you are too familiar with policies". -Amark moo! 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by BirgitteSB
No evidence is really being given for policies being breached just a link to the contribution history of both editors. So I will not examine the general dispute. However I found it trivial to look at block log. I cannot come up with any possible reason that it would be acceptable to block an editor with the reason "threatened me by email." In fact any block where the reason includes the word "me" is likely inappropriate. This one is paticurlarly bad because the only evidence is off-wiki and also highly personal. I believe threats should be taken very seriously, I don't know what kind of threat can be only worth a 31 hour block. And we can't really know that because Trödel simply blocked the editor instead of making it a public record for others to examine. My frank opinion is that if any email were threatening enough to deserve a block it should be an indefinate block until the blocked editor shows understanding that threats are completely out of line and promises to never cross that line again. However the block should be not be made by the object of the threat. Trödel is a sincere editor and I expect he will take a lesson from this RfC and recuse himself from blocking any editors he has a personal issue with in the future
 * I will recuse myself for situations like this in the future. -- Trödel 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) .--BirgitteSB 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Viridae Talk  21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Although repentance is good. -Amark moo! 03:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Shimeru
I took the time to go through the talk page histories. Frankly, I find both parties here to be acting in a less than fitting manner, although I can easily see how each feels himself justified in most of the interactions. My take on the events is as follows:

TheGreenFaerae nominated Val42 for adminship. (Val42 eventually declined. ) Val42 was told by Trodel that an inexperienced user making such a nomination would negatively impact the nominee's chances. Faerae questioned why the nominator's edit count should matter. Trodel answered "that is how it is"  (I believe this was meant as a neutral, factual statement, but I think Trodel's wording is sufficiently blunt that Faerae might have felt bitten.) Faerae stated that this is not always the case, and that there was no way of knowing whether he had edited under a previous account or as an IP. Trodel repeated his point and challenged Faerae to find an exception. (Trodel is escalating the dispute here rather than trying to resolve it.) Faerae responded by asking Trodel to prove his point. At this point, Val42 (on whose talkpage this happened) stepped in and asked both parties to cool down. 

Trodel subsequently copied a portion of the above argument to Faerae's talk page. Faerae, on Trodel's talk page, repeated her request for a link to show where that argument had been used. Trodel classified this as a personal attack, but provided a few links, though he called doing so a waste of time. Faerae retracted her "lying" comment, apologized, but asked Trodel why "it [took] basically insulting you and making you pissed off to [get you to] provide proof?" Trodel then told Faerae not to communicate with him again, or he would ban Faerae for trolling. He also threatened to oppose Val42's nomination because of Faerae's questioning. 

Faerae filed an incident regarding the above dispute. (I'm having trouble finding it in the archives at the moment, but here's a late diff: ) Viridae informed Trodel of the incident posting.

Later that day, Trodel tagged an image Faerae had involvement with as an orphan. After a minor argument, Faerae acknowledged that Trodel was correct and he had misunderstood because another similar photo, with a similar filename, existed. Faerie apologized for the mistake. Trodel replied "Now this is really funny - you found where the confusion is after I explained it to you - that gave me a good chuckle." (This seems rather incivil, on the face of it, but assuming good faith I could see it as something other than biting sarcasm. Again, though, it doesn't help de-escalate the situation.)

Still later, Trodel responded to the ANI complaint. He admitted his own "less than steller behavior [sic.]", in a rather backhanded manner, and admitted "reviewing" Faerae's edits; however, he also made reasonable points about experience and earning trust. I suspect the overall tone of his remarks led Faerae to again take them as an attack, and the dispute re-escalated, leading to Trodel again declaring that "I will view further edits to my talk page as trolling." Some revert warring by each on the other's userpage ensued.

Trodel blocked Faerae for the reason "threatened me by email." This appears to be a breach of the block policy -- even if a block were justified, Trodel should have asked a neutral administrator to apply it, rather than directly blocking an editor with whom he'd been in a dispute. Faerae asked to be unblocked, denying sending any such threat. Trodel removed the unblock request "since the block [had] expired." About six hours later, Faerae still found herself unable to edit, and added a new unblock request. After some interaction with Kusma, it was found that Faerae's IP had been autoblocked, and that autoblock was removed. 

And that brings us to this RfC.

In my mind, Faerae took what was initially meant as a neutral and helpful criticism in bad faith and became confrontational because of it. His requests, at first defensive, became belligerent, and it's easy for me to see why Trodel might have felt harassed or classified Faerae as a troll. However, as Trodel said, Faerae is a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian. This does not, of course, excuse Faerae, but it does suggest that a more diplomatic approach might be warranted. Looking down on a newcomer because of a low edit count (or phrasing things to suggest that newcomers are looked down upon because of low edit counts) is a violation of WP:BITE.

Trodel, on the other hand, is an experienced administrator. He should be working to resolve the issue. He should not be calling Faerae a troll -- even if it's true, it doesn't help with the situation at hand. He should not be escalating conflicts. He should not be threatening a user with whom he's in dispute with a block -- that's an abuse of admin status. He most certainly should not be actually blocking said user -- that's an egregious abuse of admin powers. He should not be forbidding attempts to communicate legitimately with him via his talk page -- and especially not threatening blocks for doing so. Instead of challenging and "reviewing" Faerae, he should have calmly made his points and then walked away, or asked for a neutral admin's input. Even if Faerae is a troll and a sockpuppet, as Trodel suggests, I am concerned by the lack of judgment Trodel has shown in his approach to Faerae. Faerae's own breaches of civility are no excuse; administrators should adhere to a higher standard. I also find Trodel's dismissal of an RfC extremely troubling. I hope that in the future he'll strive to present a better example. Shimeru 21:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Shimeru 21:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Viridae Talk  21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) TheGreenFaerae 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -I am willing to admit my own shortcomings. My only goal is to get Trodel to elave me alone. This staetement is as accurate a third aprty opinion as I think can be amde. I am indeed int the wrong to some degree if you look at the entire situation, but I filed this RfC with the sole itnetion of getting Trodel to leave me alone. I felt there was no toher way to do so, as I had asked this, several times, as you can see, but he did not, and he quite simpyl considers contacting him in any way to eb trolling. My opinion that he is guilty to soem degree of trolling is from the viewpoint that his "reviewing" of ym edits is made with the sole intention of estarting a conflict with me, which fits the definition according to Wikipedia.
 * 4) BirgitteSB 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Both users are in the wrong. -Amark moo! 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Good work on the historical analysis. TheronJ 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Val42 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) &mdash; I "witnessed" the history references from the beginning to 10 plus 14 because I was "there". I would say though that I declined after 14 rather than right after the nomination as is implied by the way it is written.  (Don't rewrite it because it will mess up the numbering in this comment, and if someone really wants to know, they'll read down to this point.)  Since he did such a good job up to this point, I'm assuming that he did well on the rest of the summary.  I wanted to comment here so that it was in context, but I'm going to make a suggestion further down too.
 * Sorry, didn't mean to imply that about the timing. I'm not sure your decision to decline the nomination is actually relevant here; I just decided to err on the side of caution and included it for completeness.  Clarified my parenthetical a bit. Shimeru 10:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse balanced summary. Eluchil404 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by TheronJ
IMHO, this is is an example of a situation that seems to come up relatively frequently across Wikipedia -- a relatively inexperienced editor takes offense at something and begins needling another editor, who snaps back, and the next thing you know, it's the Grangerfords and the Sheperdsons all over again. More specifically:
 * 1) General observations: I don't think there's much blame to offer either party. Faerae seems to be a relatively new editor, and in my prior experiences with Trodel, he has been very thoughtful and fair to new editors.  (In fact, Guinnog and I recently awarded Trodel a kindness barnstar for his work with another new editor who was looking at a community ban before Trodel stepped in).  I do think that either party could have de-escalated this particular situation, however, and will offer some suggestions to that effect.
 * 2) TheGreenFaerae: If you're in another situation like this, my advice is to let it go. (See generally WP:CIVIL and A nice cup of tea and a sit down).  I understand that you were offended when Trodel said that he thought that a nomination from a relatively new editor would hurt your nominee's chances.  You will probably get offended a couple times a month on Wikipedia.  (I certainly do).  The key thing to remember is that it just doesn't matter.  Just say "Fred is good enough to succeed with a self-nom" and let it go.  Similarly, at any point in your argument with Trodel, it would have been easy to say "Thanks for your comments.  I will consider them seriously.  See you around."
 * 3) Trodel: I think there's some room for Wikilawywering about whether the blocking policy literally forbids blocking a user in this case, where there was no content dispute, but there was a non-content-based dispute. (I've called this the "self-defense block" in other circumstances).  Still, I think it's best practice to ask an outside admin to evaluate a situation like this rather than blocking on your own, and you've agreed to do that, so good for you.
 * 4) *In general, I think that bringing in a third party would have been preferable to self-defense. I think you were basically in the right, and am completely confident in your good faith, but when you're feeling torqued off at somebody, it's a good time to post something at WP:AN or on some other talk pages to get an outside opinion.  (See generally WP:TIGERS).  I personally am not crazy about the practice of asking users to stay off your talk page, although I recognize that the practice is accepted and widespread.  IMHO, if someone can't let an issue go, but isn't actually vandalizing your page, it's better just to say "I'm sorry that we don't agree, but I think we've said all we can say about this.  If you think there's anything else I can do to resolve this issue, please let me know and I'll consider it."  I could see making a special archive just for a single user if their posts are really cluttering up your page, but telling them not to talk to you is IMHO counter-productive.
 * 5) Stalking: I'm not crazy about accusations of wikistalking in general, because I think that they normally distract from the real issues. At a minimum, though, the stalking guideline is clear that merely "following a user around to clear repeated errors" is not stalking.  As I understand the situation, Trodel (1) reviewed your contributions to see if there was evidence that you were a sockpuppet account, and concluded that you weren't, and (2) during the course of this review, made one edit to a page you had previously edited.  (here).  One good faith edit is not even arguably Wikistalking.  Also, for what it's worth, if I had seen an edit summary instructing another editor to "stop the stupid nerd attitude", I probably would have checked out the edit too.  Thanks, TheronJ 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) *Update to Stalking: Thanks, Trodel, for correcting my misunderstanding. AFAICT, that's still not technically wikistalking, because the edits all seem to be in good faith, and I assume you're not making them to annoy or harass Faerae.  On the other hand, I can see why Faerae's taking offense.  The best solution for you both might be to just walk away.  Your edits are correct, but Faerae's not exactly a threat to the encyclopedia, and someone else will get around to correcting Faerae's edits in time.  (On the other hand, Faerae should also make an effort to respond to your edits constructively -- your edits are good, and responding to them on their merits would help him develop valuable experience as an editor).  TheronJ 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of full disclosure I made more than one edit to pages TheGreenFaerae frequents: -- Trödel 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * this was the first edit
 * Upon which TheGreenFaerae filed a ANI report in retaliation so I reviewed additional edits to get a better feel for this user and made these changes
 * remove text that violates WP:LIVING
 * dab
 * removed text again (using revert tool - I know another bad - sometimes I am just lazy)
 * Mark this image as an orphan [[Image:Superman-loneranger.jpg]], which BTW I notified and then explained(4:55) why, to which I got this reply
 * and the one that set off this RfC - which is just a can't help myself grammer edit

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) TheronJ 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC) with the note that Trodel has acknoledged his errors in judgement, while TGF has done nothing of the sort. With the note that Trodel appears to be trying desperatly to disengage while TGF is flogging a deceased equine (via RFAR). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse with addendum. Good advice.  Eluchil404 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Val42
My nomination for adminship was apparently what started this dispute. Shimeru did a good summary of the dispute in a section above. I'm not an admin, so I'm not really familiar with what admins should/shouldn't do. But it seems that both of the primary people involved in this dispute acted in less than stellar ways. It has happenned to me on Wikipedia too.

Here's a resolution that I suggest:
 * 1) Trödel remains an administrator. (That's really what this page is about, isn't it?)
 * 2) TheGreenFaerae remains an editor. (There's half of an implication that this is also what this page is about.)
 * 3) These two users stay out of each other's edits for six months. (This seems to be what both users want anyway.)
 * 4) No "stalking", reviewing the other's history for edits made.
 * 5) No posting on the other's user discussion page.
 * 6) If you come across the other's edits when doing normal Wikipedia edits
 * 7) You can make obvious spelling, punctuation or grammar only
 * 8) You can make edits if a concensus is reached on the article's discussion page, or three days have passed since the initial request for concensus with no response.
 * 9) If an edit was made on the other's edit that you didn't notice at the time was the other's edit, you need to revert your edit or the other editor is allowed to do it.
 * 10) Just wait for someone else to make the edit.
 * 11) This is a sort of probation that if neither user violates them within these six months, that this issue be dropped.

Of course, not being an admin, I have no way of enforcing it. Of course the time and terms are just a proposal at this time, very open to suggestions.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Val42 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) TheGreenFaerae 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) This is all I really wanted, to be honest. Since Trodel has already agreed not to abuse his blocking power, his review of my edit history was honestly all i cared about. Just one more thing to add though- no observing of the user pages or the suer discussion pages. I wholeheartedly agree with this. Good work, Val42. -I might add consequences for violation of this agreement.
 * "I might add consequences for violation of this agreement." That is ridiculous. RFC has no formal enforcement, and you saying that will probably just serve to re-escalate tensions. – Chacor 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that, should there be no consequence for violating the agreement, there will be nothing holding either of us to the agreement, and, from my experience, I do not think Trodel will obey anything just out of the goodness of his heart. I would be willing to accept consequences against me for violating the agreement, and I do not appreciate your writing off of my opinion as "ridiculous". TheGreenFaerae 08:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. If anyone can't understand our core policies, then I must say that they don't belong here. – Chacor 09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it appears you have not taken the time to fully read this dispute, as that policy is a core issue, whether or not Trodels edits were indeed in good faith. Please, do not continue this discussion here as it is not constructive to this process.TheGreenFaerae 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying you need to assume good faith a bit more, especially with the comment that "I do not think Trodel will obey anything just out of the goodness of his heart." That violates WP:AGF and probably WP:CIV too. – Chacor 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chacor here -- the purpose of RfC isn't to provide for "enforcement," it's simply to gather input on the matter at hand from various editors. If you and Trodel agree with Val42's proposal, you have simply to follow it.  (I don't know if "obey" is really the right term here.)  It's not some sort of binding resolution, though; it's just a suggestion.  If the two of you agree to leave each other alone -- that's a solution, of sorts.  If one of you doesn't, well, there's a documented case to refer to next time, if it should come to that.  But any solution is going to require some good faith on both your parts, at least as far as trying to let the past lie. Shimeru 10:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I mixed up the ideas with Arbitration, so I'm sorry to have brought up a consequences thing.TheGreenFaerae 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than taking adminship away from Trödel (which I don't think there is enough cause for), I don't think that there is really anything enforcement-wise that can be done. Blocking an IP address or a user name is really only temporary; a person can just re-register with another user name.  From what you've both said, I figured that you both want the other to stay out of your business.  If this proposal works, then you both get what you want.  If it doesn't, then we're all no worse off. Val42 04:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is unbelievable - I don't agree to this at all. -- Trödel 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why unbelievable? Viridae Talk 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sad to read this. I truly hoped we could come to an understanding, but not only has he refused to accept this agreement, but he has once again used my edit history to find something to do on Wikipedia, that article being an article on 4chan, which it is pretty obvious that he could have only happened on that page from my edit history. I wish you would accept a resoluton, especially one as simple as this agreement. I am more than willing to accept it, it is more than fair. I wish we could have come to an agreement, really I did. I guess I must simply go to the only step left in the resolution process. TheGreenFaerae 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Unbelievable
"Why unbelievable?" Because it assumes that the allegations TheGreenFaerae has made are true.

First let me say that I have admitted my culpability in overreacting and I have committed to not block TheGreenFaerae.

Unbelievable because the precedent that TheGreenFaerae's seeks are dangerous ones, and that Val42 would propose remedies that support these precedents is particularly hard for me to accept given my past dealings with him.

The dangerous precedents (note that these are not all my objections):
 * That reviewing someone's edit history and making non-controversial edits to those pages is equivalent to stalking
 * You are making the edits to disrupt my activities on Wikipedia. This is stalking.TheGreenFaerae 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That a user should be able to claim that their edit history is off limits to another user just because they claim a violation of WP:STALK
 * When the violation is valid, why not?TheGreenFaerae 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That provoking other users with harsh language is acceptable on Wikipedia
 * I have made a couple fo bad word chocies in the past and apologized for them.TheGreenFaerae 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Making all the pages in TheGreenFaerae's edit history off limits is not a balanced remedy. Especially when you consider
 * That it is inappropriate to ask someone to limit their communications to the relevant article talk pages
 * 1) that the edits clearly are beneficial (see the edit that TheGreenFaerae complained of immediatley prior to this RfC; the edit that TheGreenFaerae felt justified filing a RfAr)
 * The motvies however, are not.TheGreenFaerae


 * 1) that I have restrained myself from challenging, which I could do legitimately, his completely unsourced additions, and
 * That's like telling somebody to stop complaining about being stabbed in the foot, because they could be stabbed in the lung.


 * 1) that his unbending demand that I provide citations to support my opinion on a talk page runs completely contrary to his edit history which, as of late January, showed that none of his article contributions provided any references.
 * You were claiming your, albeit educated opinion was official Wikipedia policy, which, by the way, ti never was, which is a little more important than any edit I have made.TheGreenFaerae 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it is way too bureaucratic. Frankly, since I have committed to not ever block TheGreenFaerae again, I don't think any other remedy is needed or appropriate, since not one of the edits I have made to any page has been shown to be made in bad faith. Furthermore, not one of my edits is even controversial, or could be argued is not clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Let me list them here again 4chan, Chasing Dogma, University of Alaska Anchorage, UAA again, orphaned image, image explanation, original research on Chloe Sullivan so you can see that TheGreenFaerae's email threat to make me pay should I edit a page that is in his edit history has been carried out through this RfC and the subsequent RfAr.
 * I never made this threat. This is a blatant lie. Why else has it never been seen?TheGreenFaerae 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember, all I have asked is that he discuss my edits on the relevant talk pages, a request he has never honored. Instead he continues to seek to confront me, to challenge my integrity.

Furthermore, he has continued to show that he feels that "basically insulting you and making you pissed off" is how one resolves disputes on Wikipedia:
 * accuses another editor of an abuse of power for deleting an image
 * When he refuses to accept a fully justified fair use criteria, which I broke down, word for word, how is it anything but?TheGreenFaerae 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Accuses Hipocrite of not reading this RfC, then refuses to accept a view which differs from his own.
 * I never refused to accept his opinion. I was simply discussing it with the user in a civilized manner. You erroneous slandering in this isntance is little mroe than trolling.TheGreenFaerae 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * edit summary: "WP:AGF does nto apply in the face of evidence such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.165.76.174 . Please, feel free to join the discussion on my talk as it would better exp" wherein he reverted edits that he either did not read or where he misrepresented his reversion in the edit summary. (Note the anon editor clearly identified his actions in his edit summaries see Special:Contributions/68.165.76.174.)
 * The editor I made this remark agreed with me in this instance.TheGreenFaerae 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This continues the behaviour he has had since joining Wikipedia - His second edit was to file for mediation (admin only) wherin he accused User:Debuskjt of being a bully, see Undelete History (admin only) for the edit summaries of this deleted request for mediation.
 * Frank Zappa trivia,
 * Cars (film),
 * Coverville (where btw the tag complained of wasn't even part of the edits),
 * Delaware Memorial Bridge.
 * My second edit was not an RfM. I made significant additions to an article on Allusions in Smallville that it was later decided was not worthy of beign kept on the project. While i do not dispute this, the fact is that this article was removed from all instances in my edit history.TheGreenFaerae 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The above research upon returning from my self-imposed wikibreak continue to provide evidence that TheGreenFaerae does not see anything wrong with his behavior. -- Trödel 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, Trodel, why do you think it is that you are the only person to refuse to accept this proposal? I am nto sayin I am right, but would you also count every other editor, including Val42, Shimeru, and Viridae, to be just as bad as I am? I did not come up with this proposal. I simply accepted it.TheGreenFaerae 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No Tödel is not the only person who can't accept this proposal. It goes against the very wiki-spirit. Agathoclea 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And his wikistalking me is in the spirit? This is a mediatory measure between the two of us and the two of us alone. If this compromise cannot be reached, then we will have no choice but to go for full out arbitration, which could be far worse.TheGreenFaerae 09:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mm. I wouldn't, either.  Mostly because I'd find "Please leave each other alone whenever possible." logical and sufficient.  The two of you should really have as little to do with each other as possible.  Before, I suggested that both of you were acting badly, and you both believed yourselves fully justified.  Now, you've both acknowledged making mistakes... but your actions haven't changed.  You're in danger of repeating those mistakes.  Let it go.  Please. Shimeru 10:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how my actions have not changed. A good chunk of trodel's evidence comes from events that are from long before this dispute ever began, specially remarking on my old RfC with debuskjt, which, I might add, ended rather nicely, and I personally gave a barnstar to debuskjt which he graciously accepted simply because we were able to come to a compromise. Trodel has not admitted to virtually any wrongdoing. the only thing he said is he should have told someone else to block me. He never admitted that this block was unjustified, or that he committed any sort of wrong doing against me. In fact, his basic point in this entire argument was that Val42's compromise does not make sense because he has done nothing wrong to me, while I have done everything wrong. This is blatantly false. I admit I acted badly at times, and I tried repeatedly to apologize. Now, I think Val42's compromise simply illustrates what steps need to be taken to avoid each other whenever possible.  If Val42's compromise does nto make fulfill these qualifications, then what would?TheGreenFaerae 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice that only you have endorsed Val42's comments. This is a place to find out what other people think of a situation.  It is sort of a reality check where you can see if others see a situation the same way you do.  The reality is no-one besides you has endorsed Val42's comments, this should alert you that they are not seen as "a good idea".  There is no reason to pressure Trödel to agree with them when they are not widely endorsed.  The fact that Trödel has not said the things you wish he would is not a reason to go to Arbitration.   I agree with Shimeru in that you should simply avoid him.  There can only really be a dispute when two people both wish to have one; it will only take one of you deciding to ignore the other and the dispute will fade away.  What is the worst thing that would happen if you just ignored him from now on?-- Birgitte SB  19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to try to walk away. But every time I try, his name comes popping up in my edit history. Also, considering that eh is watching my talk page, and my edit history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tr%C3%B6del/Task2, it is obvious he would not ignore me. So what you basically said, Birgitte, is that the best way to end this is to say I don't mind him blocking me by proxy, or wikistalking me. I am not going out of my way to aggrivate him. But every time i assume we have ended a dispute by deciding to ignore each other, his name pops up as a signal that he can control my edit history. Why is it that everyone is telling me I need to ignore him, when he is the one who cannot seem to ignore me? Birgette, that is quite simply a foolish statement to make. That is like saying somebody is not assaulting someone because they don't mind being kicked in the groin. Trodel is using my edit history in a way that violates Wikipedia policy. It is wikistalking, as he is following me around the project, seemingly to cause distress to me. As for the argument that his edits are purely beneficial, let me say this: How could he know I made a mistake if he was not violating WP:AGF and assuming that I make mistakes no matter what page I edit, and it is his duty to correct those mistakes. The only reason I feel arbitration was, and likely is still nessecerry, is it is the only way that Trodel will ignore me, it seems. One more thing, I am getting tired of Trodel talking about this threat I made by email. I never made any threat by email, and I challenge him to produce said threat.  And I want to ask one last thing? Why has Trodel not responded to m charges in full with his reasoning for the acts? Even more troubling, why has no one else called him on this? He keeps bringing up any conversation to use as an argument that, pardon that language, that I am an asshole, but he has not provided evidence that the charges I have brought against him are wrong, while i have produced proof that they are valid. He continues to make personal attacks against me, continuing to refer to me fradulently as a troll, and even worse he is flat out lying about situations to fit his purposes. As for the idea that simply not officially blocking em is good enough, If any edit I make has to be approved by him personally, how is it any better?TheGreenFaerae 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New argument for Compromise
I recently found this page that really might help explain what our conflict is calmly and rationally: WP:APBB If we apply this doctrine to our conflict, it really helps bring a level head to the conflict. Trodel, --your own text, which you know you wrote in earnest good faith, might be horribly misinterpreted by others, who honestly don't see any other way of reading your text.-- You may not view your edits as anything but constructive, but the fact that you got them directly out of my edit history, that you edited those pages only because i edited them, is what causes me distress. Also, many of your complaints about me are likely along these lines: --The person whose latest text seems to attack you, your character, your skills, your most cherished beliefs, and your mother's cousin's next-door neighbor's pet cat, might conceivably have been trying only to make a serious or even friendly comment, due to a single word omitted or misspelled, or perhaps a joke that fell terribly flat because his smile and ironic tone of voice didn't accompany his words onto the page.--

In light of this idea, i offer forth a new compromise: Quite simply, we will not go out of our way to cross paths on Wikipedia. that is, we will not open each others edit histories to find work to do, we will not look at each other's talk pages, and we will not communicate with each other. Now if we happen to work on the same page. That is, I make an edit, and in the course of your work, you come across the same page, you may correct it, as long as you did not come across that page by way of my edit history, and vice versa. I feel this new compromise is much closer to what Shimeru has said, and away from your complaints with Val42's idea. The basic thing we need to agree to is to not intentionally go into each other's edit histories. Is this in any way still unacceptable?

I want to assure you, that if you agree to this compromise, I will not contest any correction you make that you come across in a manner other than observation of my edit history.

TheGreenFaerae 10:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let's see. Let's look at each of your recent contributions. Trödel has NONE related to this "conflict", you have far too many. Methinks you just need to drop it and leave it be. As far as I can tell, Trödel is trying to stay away from you but your insistence in pushing this matter is contradicting what you want, which is what he's trying to do. – Chacor 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He was on for one day, and in that one day he did not make any edits from my edit history, and I am grateful for that. But before that he was away for a while and the day before he went away he made just four edits, one of which was out of my edit history. If he continues to stay out of it, as he did the last time he went editing, then we will have no conflict. I admit that. But if he cannot agree to this one agreement, then it seems he does not wish to ignore me. But your claim, Chacor, is flawed in that it fails to account for his recent periods of absence from any editing. Look at the dates, my friend, before making such an argument. I would also like to request that if anyone but Trodel wishes to comment on this, please do not simply reiterate arguments made elsewhere, and please only post a comment if you have something truly constructive to add. Also, chacor, please don't let your friendship with Trodel make you feel as though you constantly have to defend him. Any fully one-sided comments like that are a hinderance to the process.TheGreenFaerae 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You fail to AGF. I am completely neutral in this matter. You do not have the right to decide what are "a hinderance [sic] to ... process". I strongly suggest you look yourself in the mirror and buck up your attitude here on Wikipedia, and stop behaving as if you're right, because you're not. – Chacor 11:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I make my statement from the observation that you have not said a word in disagreement with Trodel in any way. That comment, which such a high degree of hostility serves to escalate tensions in a way that is counter productive, now please, do not create such a fight like this. am not saying that I am right. I am simply observing that the other suers who have comments have in some way said they disagreed with some of Trodel's past actions. I would also note that they found a lot more of my actions to complain about, and I respect that. The difference is they spoke out against the both of us. They did not take sides, as you have. You may believe yourself to be neutral, but there is no evidence for that.I base my statement that you are beign oen sided on this lack of evidence.TheGreenFaerae 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish to psot the email I have sent to Trodel. I believe this email to have been neutral, and I believe it would be constructive to mention it:

I appreciate your recent trend of avoiding ym edit history. This tells me that you are willing to compromise to some degree. I have put forth a new compromise, and an essay that it would do well for the both of us to read and apply to our present conflict. Please, post your thoughts, and let's try to bring a resolution to this conflict. I would appreciate that your recent trend of keeping a much more leveled head regarding this conflict would continue. Even looking now, at Val42's compromise, i can see that it is a little too imposing for our conflict. That is why I would simply like to make a new compromise that we will not deliberately seek conflict with one another. You would not be stopped in anyway from correcting any edit I make. I just don't want you to look at a page simply because I made an edit. That is, if you come across it in any way other than looking at my edit history, it is perfectly all right to correct as you see fit. I believe you have already begun to do this without being asked, also let's simply finish the pen and paper of it and get this conflict out of our way. TheGreenFaerae 11:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its time to drop this and let it go. Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that is what I am saying, to some degree here. But I cannot let it go alone. I need Trodel to agree to let it go. It is my belief that, from his recent history, that Trodel is wanting to end the conflict as well. I honestly believe that we will have this ended tomorrow. But Trodel has to say he is going to for that to happen.TheGreenFaerae 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my intetion is beign misunderstood at this point. This is my compromise, in one sentence-
 * We will do our very best to ignore each other.
 * I believe that means that we will not look at each other's edit histories, or each other's talk pages. It does not mean we will ignore each other's edits. Odds are we will, at some point, be working on the same article. Any corrections made in these instances will not be considered as anything negative. Please, do not post a comment saying it is time to drop this. I am saying just that here. Only reply if there is a part of this compromise that you disagree with. I believe this to be as neutral as possible, and the simplest possible resolution. It is very possible that I am wrong. The page i began this section with, and that I am basing my current opinions on, outlines this. I have made mistakes, and Trodel has made mistakes. My conflict was arguably much worse than his was. I accept that. This resolution would not imply guilt to either one of us, nor would it confirm that either of us are right. it would simply end the conflict. It is my observation that Trodel is already conforming to this, according to his recent edit history. This is simpyl going to be a gentleman's agreement between thee two of us to walk away, and to agree that we will end conflict with each other. If there is something missing from this compromise, please let me know.TheGreenFaerae 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been monitoring this disagreement for some time. TheGreenFaerae, I think that, at this point, you are beating a dead horse.  Trödel hasn't responded to you for a while.  He will probably, eventually reply, but it will take much more time than will be useful.  There are times when things just have to be dropped, no matter how much we think we have been wronged.  Val42 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked not to post unconstructive "Just drop it" comments like that here. Please, This is just a formality to bring a close to the RfC properly, in the billion to one chance the dispute isn't dropped and has to go to arbitration or other such means. I know Trodel has been ignoring me, and I sent him an email telling him that I appreciated it. I do not expect this to be responded to right away, and I don't think it really has to be. But you can't just say oh well never mind on a process like this. We have to officially close it. I guess I'm going to have to say this again in big letters: "DO NOT POST ANYTHING THAT SAYS JUST DROP IT HERE. THE MESSAGE IS RECEIVED AND THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ESSENTIALLY DO JUST THAT. DO NOT POST ANY FEEDBACK AGAIN HERE, UNLESS IT DIRECTLY PERTAINS TO THIS COMPROMISE, I.E. SOMETHING UNREASONABLE AND/OR MISSING. IF YOU WANT TO SEND ME A 'JUST DROP IT' MESSAGE, SEND IT TO MY TALK PAGE, AND NOT POST IN AN UNCONSTRUCTIVE MANNER HERE. THANK YOU. TheGreenFaerae 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to ne a request for comment not a monologue. The community has clearly lost interest and there is nowhere further for this to go. Also note that you don't get to dictate the terms under which the community contributes so please don't issue instructions what people can and can't contribute. If you have any future problems with Trodel I suggest you seek a third party to mediate. I'm delisting this. It's over. Accept it. Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. If you have the power to officially close an RfC, go ahead. I simply was not aware there was anyone looking in that could do so, so I was trying to close it officially this way. Thank you for expiditing the process.TheGreenFaerae 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this RFC. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.