Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Trödel

Discussion

If you really expect other editors to dig through two contribution histories and make your case for you, I believe you will be sorely disapointed in the outcome of this RfC. You have made accusations here but provided no evidence.--BirgitteSB 15:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is really a problem, I will find specific diffs, because it's not all that hard. -Amark moo! 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit history, as I explained was the best tool to explain the vulture watching of my edit history. I wanted to show it so you could see how out of place his edits that were taken directly out of my history were, like the Chasing Dogma edit. There is no way he randomly came across that when he spends most of his time on mormon-related pages. Also, his threat was illegitimate to begin with, and I do not appreciate your urging to extend the block indefinately. I never made a threat. I know threating is not allowed, but I never made a threat. I suggest that of trodel wants to call it a threat, he should show this supposed threat, and prove it was a threat, because without showing the threat, he could, and I believe he is, making it up.TheGreenFaerae 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not urging anyone to extend your block indefinately. That is my opinion on how threats should be treated. If you never made a threat, why do you believe I would want your block extended? My comments are about how I think Trödel acted inappropriately when he believed himself threatened. Whether he really was threatened or he misunderstood you I cannot say because it was not made public. And I am certainly not urging anyone to extend your block when I cannot even be certain you made a threat.

Well, i'm sorry, but thats they way that comment came off to me.TheGreenFaerae

Regarding you not presenting a case. You have failed to list evidence of policies being breached. In fact I am not even sure what some of the policies are that you think were broken as you did not link to them. What is Bulllying? Wikipedia:Bullying doesn't exist. Breach of WP:NPA should be clearly shown in diffs. There is no reason to expect people to dig through contributions to find a personal attack against you. This part of your complaint should have at least four diffs (where I placed *) 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*.--BirgitteSB 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullying is guidelines, which nearly any editor would agree with. The section is called Policies and guidelines, and as to the others, the ANI noticeboard shows personal attacks, like calling me 'Nixon", and the edit summary shows him explaining his edits with threats. The WP:NPA is the edit history, as I feel his vulture eye on my edit history is nothing else than a personal attack, which is explained on the ANI. I understand if it is too much of a hassle for you to look into, but the evidence is there. I'm sorry I'm not showing a dozen variations of the same page, but I prefer expediting them, but simply providing those three pages, which,l with a little bit of link following, will show the entire case. I wanted to make this easy enough to follow, and as such, I did not pprovide every possible link I could, just the nessecerry ones. Now, if you don't want to take the time, which it would take some time, to look through my evidence fully, I completely understand, but the evidence is there.TheGreenFaerae 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

TheGreenFaerae: I really was not suggesting you should de indef blocked I am sorry if you misunderstood. When the page talks about "Policies and guidelines" it means thing found at Category:Wikipedia official policy and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. It really is asking you to find a specific written down idea that has consensus at Wikipedia that someone else has not followed. For explample WP:NPA specifically talks about what is considered a personal attack. Calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack. The "vulture eye" on your edit history is not a personal attack. This is what consensus has decided. That does not mean it is OK to follow your history, but it is not a breach of WP:NPA. You might want look at WP:STALK about that issue. Hope this help you understand my remarks more clearly.--BirgitteSB 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A relatively new user is not necessarily aware of the intriacies of RfC. I've provided a number of diffs in my outside view that seem to corroborate Faerae's story, although Faerae also was more confrontational than the summary of the complaint suggests. Shimeru 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Shimeru, you have done a fine job clarifing the situation with your summary. I understand that a new user would not know off-hand the details of RfC. However this is not an RfC against a new user, it is intiated by one. Perhaps my expectations are too high that anyone intiating a RfC, however new, would research into so they could make the most convincing case. Thanks for doing the legwork on this.

BirgitteSB please give some licence to the fact that he is an inexperienced editor, you really aren't helping the situation. Viridae^Talk 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Viridae: Well you aren't really doing much to help him either. I was at least was pointing out that he needs to provide evidence to get a good response. Shimeru has done a great deal to help him out now so it is a moot point.--BirgitteSB 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs Amark found

"Never communicate with me again" [1]

Shimeru's summary

I would also like to add that I apologized for and acknowledged my own less than stellar civility. This RfC was only filed because Trodel did not let the issue die. I have apologized repeatedly, and continue to apologize for accidental rudeness I might display. My only reason for RfC, as Shimeru very succinctly put, was the abuse of blocking power. I deny being called a troll, as I never made any statements to start a fight, although the appearance in the community seems to be that I took it personally, which I did not really, I just wanted him to cite his sources, but that's neither here nor there. I want to make it clear that I am willing to stay way from trodel, provided he does the same. If he stops watching my edits, I would not bring another word against him. TheGreenFaerae 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS- I'm a dude. Why does everyone always think I'm a girl?

Because a fairy is generaly seen as a tiny winged female figure.--BirgitteSB 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes but a Green Fairy, as seen in Eurotrip, is a fat profane dude that parties. If you are not familiar, it is a euphemisim for the drink absinthe, which is one of the msot potent alcoholic beverages in the world.I chose the name, becaus eit was also an inspiration for some of history's most creative minds, such as Edgar Allen Poe and Vincent Van Gough. My intentions in using the name was to instill a vision of creative inspiration. TheGreenFaerae 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling all of you.

How do any of my actions towards any of you classify as trolling? I do not feel that Trodels use of the word is anything less than a personal attack, as he calls me a troll against all the rest of you, even though I have done nothing but thank you all for your feedback. If I am missing something, please, tell me.TheGreenFaerae 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail Threat

I think i know what email Trodel is referring to, and I simply said that, as he would claim contact with him was trolling, I would consider his reviewing of my edits in the same way, and take the appropriate action if need be. I never threatened to make his lfie difficult, as he put it, and I challenge him to produce proof of such a statement. This was clearly nothing more than what he said to me, and his blocking of me, fulfilling his threats is what caused this RfC, not an attempt to make his life difficult. I asked several times for him to leave me alone. when he fulfilled threats to block me, I simply took the action I needed to to get him to leave me alone. TheGreenFaerae 06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

TRodel's proof for his statements

The proof Trodel put forth originally should be ntoed as not being a good precedent, or official policy as he would state it. I nominated a user, that, if he had done a self-nom, probably would have won. Trodel pointed to cases where the nominee was as experienced as I was, and that was obviously a different situation. I think this is important to keep in mind, as Trodel had an opinion that was not directly supported by Wikipedia, and I still do not see how I was wrong to ask for proof? My words were wrong, i acknowledge, but since when was it an offense to ask for WP:CITE?TheGreenFaerae 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially, I would suggest that you sit back for a while and refrain from further edits to the RfC pages unless there's a need to clarify something or answer a question. Repeatedly making the same arguments won't help your case and might hurt it. You've filed a request for comment; best to wait, now, until people have commented. This is not necessarily a quick process. Awareness of your own missteps is good; restraint in making your case would be good also. Take a short break from the whole affair, try to calm down, and approach the matter rationally. You feel mistreated -- so does Trodel. Neither of you is wrong. (Or both of you are, to look at it another way.) But you won't achieve much if your approach is overly emotional, except possibly to alienate other editors. Shimeru 11:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A Fair Solution

I think a fair arbitration on the matter would be a ban on me from editing his talk page, emailing him, or going after his edits, and banning him from mine, respectively. If we come across each other randomly on the project, that is one thing, but pointed editing with the sole intention of reviewing, or trolling, or any other personal motivation towards a user should be banned for both of us. Does this sound like a bad deal?TheGreenFaerae 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that this has escalated to RFAR shall we delist this?

It seems to be going nowhere. --Spartaz 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be delisted (or at least inactivated) if ArbCom accepted the case, but it appears the arbitrators want to see if the dispute can be resolved through other means including (but not necessariy limited to) this RfC, so I wouldn't delist at this time. If there are no further disputes arising out of this matter, perhaps its importance will fade with time. If there are further disputes, the RfC can receive renewed attention, or if nothing else works another arbitration filing can be made. Newyorkbrad 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Spartaz 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully Spartaz, but it seems the ArbCom does not. I fail to see how it can be resolved when Trodel so blatantly dismisses any attempt at compromise, but I have nothing more I can do.TheGreenFaerae 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you yourself just drop the matter? If you just ignore him, there will be no more problem. – Chacor 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am tryign to. He won't leave me alone. I agrreeed to Val42's compromise, whcih essentially jsut forced us to ignore each other. I want to walk away, but he won't.TheGreenFaerae 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility, Hipocrite.TheGreenFaerae 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"He won't"? 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. Seriously now, drop it. This is not helping anyone. Leave the guy alone, he's trying (and as far as I am concerned, successfully) keeping away from you. – Chacor 10:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that, VERY recently, he seems to be tryign to ignore me, but this is only as of Feb 21. His edits before that, particularly the 4chan make it abundant that before this point he was not trying to ignore me. Also, his continued watching of my talk page, as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tr%C3%B6del/Task2 can be put forth as further evidence that eh is not trying to ignore me. Chacor, you need to stop your one-sided unconstructive comments. If you do not have something truly constructive to say, just "I'm the bad guy" comments, do not post them as it will escalate the situation, and I will consider it as trolling by Trodel's own definition. This isn't your fight, so i respectfully ask you to stop trying to use such totally one-sided comments towards Trodel's favor. If you do not like me, fine, you have made that abundantly clear. If you have nothing further to add, i ask you to please stay out of the discussion. If you wish to continue to make one sided comments regarding criticism you have with my behavior, please post your comments to my talk page, where they will not hinder or escalate this conflict.TheGreenFaerae 11:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BirgitteSB's striken comments

When I first commented on this page I strongly believed that someone willing to make accusations against another editor by filing an RfC was obliged to provide a strong case by researching policy and listing diffs. By the end of the above conversation my view had already softened. After further examples of the problems with the dispute reslution process, I have completely changed my mind on this issue. Any and all experienced Wikipedians need to be willing to step up as Shimeru did and strenghten malformed RfC's so that all disputes filed have the best chance of being investigated by as large an audience as possible.--BirgitteSB 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)