Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC).

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · logs) (account now abandoned, sockpuppet is Everyme (talk · contribs · logs))

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

Statement of the dispute

Cause of concern

Civility

(you seem to be refuting or justifying everything people are raising. Do you want to clarify again here what exactly you feel you've done wrong?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 09:53, 26 June 2008

Clarification: Things I have clearly done wrong include a reluctance and therefore failure to proactively avoid getting upset (which regularly results in me making uncivil comments) by e.g.

requesting a third opinion and/or
filing requests for comment on article talk pages (or on an individual editor's behaviour) and/or
attempting to clarify the exact policy situation and/or
canvassing for likeminded editors' input and/or
truly WP:DGAF and pull out of situations where I get the feeling that stubborn and/or stupid people are involved

earlier and more frequently. The latter two make me feel like a dirty cheater or a spineless ass respectively, but I should acknowledge and always bear in mind that this is how things work on Wikipedia.

In other words, the cause of concern is what I gather from other people's input. Many say that I'm uncivil too much and too frequently. I am hoping for the community's assistance in isolating the reason/s for my uncivility and in determining countermeasures I can take. However, "just stop being uncivil" won't do the trick — because I am not (or not completely) unjustly uncivil.

In keeping with my style of serious humour (which is not related to sarcasm, btw): To avoid any stress, I also should resort to the deeper incivility of disregarding others' points more often, especially when those points are valid. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OK, you created thus RfC Everyme, what result would you like to see here? Really. Just state clearly what you think we all should ask for or do.)

Um. Hmm. Not sure. State your concerns, as you have. Suggest workable remedies, as some of you have. Read my responses and let's refine workable remedies together. Or just tell me to cut out the self-pitying/self-righteous faggotry and attention whoring, as none of you have explicitly done so far. Seriously, rushing off by deleting all of my userspace and scrambling the password? How fake was that ? I know I can be a diva and drama queen, and frankly, I don't understand why people don't just tell me that in a language I can understand, e.g. Dude, please slow the fuck down on the uncivility and drama. The project is here to stay and immediatism never works. Something along those lines. And no, the fact that I know those answers to my behaviour myself already doesn't mean I don't need to hear it from someone else every once a while.
Ideally, RfC should include looking at all sides of the story, which imho is a bit more complex as 'cut out the incivility and sarcasm'. As per usual, Durova comes closest with her straightforward suggestion to take a break, with you, Casliber, a close second (I even went so far as to endorse you addendum myself!). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Desired outcome

I'd like to hear all criticism there is about me, my edits, my demeanor. I don't care whether it's just individual opinion or thoroughly backed up with diffs. Let me hear it, please.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

User:Dorftrottel (not a joke, I'm trying to be civil most of the time)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (okay.....erm, what are we trying to achieve here?...ahaa, see above)[reply]
Looks like I have to certify this one. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't try to resolve the dispute, you are the basis of a dispute I have with Wikipedia. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

Re #View by Ryan Postlethwaite: Unfortunately, it's not possible to reactivate the original account. As far as "multiple accounts" is concerned, might I add that I never used two accounts parallel. As far as creating a new account ('starting over') is concerned, I'd like to raise several points: (i) I couldn't pretend to be someone else if I tried. (ii) There is a barely, if at all, extant atmosphere of forgiveness on Wikipedia, and over time I've seen numerous comments, some by admins in good standing, actually suggesting to other users to start over with a new account. (iii) Honesty basically never pays off on Wikipedia, seeing as e.g. my good-faith disclosure note has been quoted several times in several locations to prosecute me and to dismiss the validity of reasonings of mine (which btw is the exact definition of an ad hominem attack). (iv) I do not intend to go back to full editing. (v) The new account is unambiguously linked to the old account, i.e. everyone can easily access the DT account and its block log. If it could reasonably be assumed that the average person on Wikipedia assumes good faith, I'd write a new full disclosure note with all relevant links on the new account's user page; unfortunately the average person on Wikipedia does not assume good faith. I'd love to be able to believe that, but I'm afraid I can never go back to that wonderful state of naïvety. (vi) On my request, East718 put a note in my block log regarding the blocks from before the account renamings (another good-faith effort which can only lead to trouble for me down the road, I suppose).

Speaking of sarcasm, I'm aware that sarcasm on Wikipedia is rarely, if ever, useful. But imho it's mainly a reaction to things I see and think are wrong and try to change and fail because of either suboptimal wording and general efforts to express my concerns and/or because of more or less extreme stubbornness on someone else's part. I'd say both in most cases where any conflicts occur. One problem for me is that stubbornness, incompetence and an inability to understand (or, in some cases, unwillingness to accept) what Consensus is all about are very common on Wikipedia, and I for one do regard such shortcomings as highly detrimental for the community, much more so than a healthy measure of open and honest incivility. Those things are parts of a more subtle mechanism, but that only makes it worse because it's much harder to assess and address.

Also about incivility: I like to think that this is mainly due to the fact that I'm an extreme person. Different people (although none, IIRC, of those who have chastised me for incivility) have praised comments of mine, both their phrasing and their content. I'm a bit proud of that, esp. as a non-native speaker. The plausible consequence would be to try and get rid of the incivility while retaining the useful comments. However, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'd love to, but that's not who I am. All I can do is try my best and quickly give up instead of fighting for the improvement of Wikipedia (and sometimes it just doesn't work without a fight). And I ask those who have a problem with my incivility to take a look at some other comments of mine, and at the rational component which is also often present in my comments, whether they are uncivil or not. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #View by Durova: I wouldn't say that I'm a deletionist, but as far as the 'natural advantage of deletionists' goes I cannot agree, since the output levels of fancruft are beyond incredible. Not only, so-called or self-declared, deletionists but no one has any chance against the inward pressure of total entropy. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #Addendum by Casliber: Spot on, and thanks for the input. I'm not sure how to address these things, but thanks for summarising and making it clearer. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #Comment by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: I haven't yet figured out how to change the past. With regard to 'at least 31 IPs and accounts': I have a dynamic IP address, which means that over the past 2 years, I have probably edited Wikipedia from something like five hundred or a thousand IP addresses. As to accounts: As I had written in my disclosure note, I ran into difficulties in the beginning, in an article which is arguably owned by a user who is (not only in my opinion) rather problematic on that particular article. Not knowing anything about Wikipedia, but being the person I am and recognising the absolute non-neutrality of that editor, I resorted to idiotic actions (see, I can liberally apply that word to myself as appropriate). For a lack of true effort, I ran into the same difficulties with the first account I created (TfT). When I asked an admin for unblocking (forum shopping and asking multiple parents...), he told me to register a new account and stay away from the problem area. It worked for a short while, but I still didn't know anything about Wikipedia, and after I (naively, in hindsight) disclosed my identity to the original blocker, he very quickly blocked me again. That admin has btw a considerable conflict of interest due to his involvement and personal opinions in the article in question. Additionally, he never warned me or tried to explain or talk me down or anything whatsoever, just indef blocked me.

Kncyu38, AldeBaer and Dorftrottel are one and the same account, twice renamed on request.

Also, basically each and everything in your comment was in my disclosure note which can be restored by any admin if anyone wants to read for themselves. Please do not pretend that I tried to hide anything, and especially that I did so in bad faith. I didn't immediately reveal my identity out of fear that I would be reblocked on a hunch, seeing as it had happened before. When JzG gave me the idea for the disclosure note, and after checking it with him, I instated it ASAP. The earlier (shortened) block was for telling the now-confirmed truth (I will not go into details on this one). It was stupid at the time, but as it turned out, it was the truth. So the only block that I personally recognise as valid was my drunken block. That was admittedly stupid, and I paid for it with the block and the headache of my life. So there, that's my honest assessment. I know I can be abrasive but it still saddens me to see how any honesty is being used against me. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. — Don't you see anything questionable about your own behaviour at RfA and AfD? Wrt the RfA example: Sorry if it offended you, but don't be oversensitive. Yes, it was a jab at you, but wth. As to the AfD example: What makes you assume that I was being sarcastic there as opposed to honest? (For the record: I was honest there and there is nothing sarcastic about that AfD comment whatsoever.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #Comment by John Carter (and to others as well): The multiple IP's, and apparently using them to engage in personal attacks — 2006. It happened in two-thousand six. Yes, it happened, but in a very very limited area where things stank to the high heavens (doesn't justify my actions, but explains them pretty good). When I did all of that, I was totally new to Wikipedia, at least to anything regarding more than copyediting and the entire process machinery. Totally new. You are prosecuting me for something I did more than one and a half years ago, when I was totally new. Granted, I'm still the same guy, but I know a lot more now than I did then, and I've never used an IP 'in order to conceal my identity' (in fact I was stupidly straightforward about who I was even when I was evading my block (back in 2006), naively hoping for people to recognise the good will in immediately disclosing my identity (what a stupid idiot I was, knew nothing about WP:SOCK, and still tried to be honest right from the start)). The only time I actually concealed my identity happens to be the only time it did indeed work out for me. That was when I didn't disclose my identity with the Kncyu38/AldeBaer/Dorftrottel account (which btw is another hilarious accusation: These are not 'multiple accounts'. They are one and the same account, renamed twice on request. Spinning an accusation out of that is truly artful, as far as assumption of bad faith is concerned.)

To summarise: Yes, I did have a bumpy start, back in 2006 (that's two thousand six), and since you, John, say that the issues of incivility and the alleged 'massive, malicious, abusive IP and account sockpuppetry' are unrelated iyo, I'd ask to consider that it happened at the very beginning of my wikicareer. I openly said so myself (stupid honest idiot that I am): I acted like an ordinary IP troll. Well, many people do. But only a tiny minority of them decides to stick around and learn more about the place (without any positive encouragement from anyone !) and at least creates some little articles, all of them with sources, creates a template which is now transcluded on 500+ pages and has occasionally be commended for the quality of their comments. Well, since the guy who did that started out as a garden-variety IP troll, let's shoot and bury the damn fucking asshole, shall we?

Also, create multiple accounts for the purpose of engaging in incivil conduct — I never did that. I created accounts in the hope to get myself managed and to stay away from the area that had initially caused me to lose my nerves. I just had to try two (2) times: There is the first account, Tit for tat, then I did seriously try for the first time with Subversive element (making the stupid mistake of revealing my identity to the blocking admin), and finally there was Kncyu38/AldeBaer/Dorftrottel (which, again, are one and the same). I ran into difficulties in the beginning, acted a bit stupid, then turned around enough to give it a shot (but failed), then tried a second time and succeeded (mainly because I didn't initally disclose who I was, which was partly due to the fact that one established editor had lied to me that I was banned (as opposed to blocked)). Can I light the stake myself? And kindly hand me one of those pitchforks, please. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more or less unrelated note, I'd like to state that imho my best contribution to Wikipedia was creating the shortcut WP:DUE ([1]). Where everyone had always used WP:UNDUE to slap other users over the head with it, I felt that the opposite, positive stance of including info according to due weight (as opposed to omitting info for undue weight) was for some miraculous reason not present on Wikipedia. So I created that shortcut and I'm happy to see that it's being used quite a bit. I also educated some users about the correct application of WP:ASF (another shortcut I created). And I did a major rewrite of WP:WAF (which is still basically there). Granted, I did all those things as part of my grand scheme to game the system. Particularly, I maliciously and deceivingly created the multiple sockpuppets Kncyu38, then AldeBaer, and then yet another different sockpuppet, Dorftrottel (nevermind that their contribs appear to be merged, I just used yet another dirty trick there...), to destroy the editing atmosphere on Wikipedia. That was my goal right from the start. To harm Wikipedia every way I can. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m going to reuse a lot of the material I posted to the AN thread as I feel it’s still appropriate here. Dorftrottel has used a number of accounts previously – two of which received indefinite blocks – yet he’s still here creating problems both in terms of civility and now edit warring. Here is a list of some problematic accounts.

Subversive element – blocked in October 2006 for using Wikipedia to fight an ideological war.
Tit for tat – blocked in 2006 for using Wikipedia to harass.
87.158.224 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
87.78.191.156 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
8784.44.172.138 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
84.44.175.12 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
7.78.150.42 87.78.150.42 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
AldeBaer – blocked for attempting to out another editor.
Dorftrottel – blocked for incivility.
87.78.154.177 - block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.155.210- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.146.190- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.155.245- block evasion from dorftrottel account.

Now, on top of all this – from the latest account we have numerous instances of incivility;

Dorftrottel scrambled his password and started using IP’s to edit followed by another new account. This needs to stop now – Dorftrottel should agree to use one account for the remainder of his wiki-career, should he choose to continue to edit constructively. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging users who have concerns raised about them to go off in a mood and create a new account – it spreads contributions and problematic edits over a number of accounts making it hard to consider evidence when problems arise. Further, Dorftrottel needs to cut the incivility and sarcasm out completely – it’s unneeded and promotes a nasty atmosphere here. Should he choose to continue his flippant attitude towards his incivility, the community should consider placing him on a strict civility parole and limiting to one account.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ryan Postlethwaite 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a code of conduct that must be followed. There's no excuse for some of this users actions, and if they continue to act in a uncivil manner he should be placed under strict civility patrol. Nobody is perfect, but when incivility becomes a pattern actions needs to be taken. Not only must Dorftrottel stop being uncivil, but he must stop making new accounts. WP:SOCK says "repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and considered as a breach of this policy."--SJP_Chat 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Casliber

I don't actually find the language or colourful comments a problem, but it is the lack of empathy with others' feelings or points of view - the odd assumption that berating and challenging others can somehow get them to 'see' that your view is right. You seem to blur your personal view with some universal sense of what is right. This may be akin to how you get in scrapes with other editors as well in either accidentally or purposefully ignoring the inflammatory nature of interactions. The final problem is that you can turn around and take offence easily, which is somehow inconsistent with your desire for others to accept you and your colourful interactions.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup again -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Durova

Dorftrottel says that forgiveness is in short supply. As one of the editors who has a reputation for being short on forgiveness, I'd like to remind him that I had once sitebanned a certain individual Dorftrottel has been in conflict with, and then brought that person back. We're on good terms now and sometimes we collaborate together.

Dorf, as a deletionist you have a natural advantage. If an inclusionist goes away for a while, then from the inclusionist's standpoint Wikipedia loses valuable data that would be cumbersome to rebuild. When a deletionist takes a break, all that giddy cruft remains right where you left it, waiting for your cleansing hand (unless somebody either hops up and deletes it before you return or unless somebody else references the darn stuff).

My friend, take a break. Trivia isn't worth anger. Go swimming. Take up photography. Read a novel. You're a smart guy; come back when you're at your best again.

Users who endorse this summary:

Durova^Charge! 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through this RFC, I find this viewpoint to be pretty dead-on. Wizardman 00:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall you're a good editor, and an asset to the encyclopedia. A break may calm you down, thus keep you from making uncivil comments.--SJP_Chat 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with this one. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Please note that I was asked directly to comment here, otherwise per Durova's suggestion that we avoid each other, I would have sat this request for comment out, but regarding that suggestion, please see [2] and User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 21#Trying to play Solomon. And yet, he still saw the need to comment to or about or after me on wiki: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. In fact he made only three DRV edits on June 12, all of which happen to be in discussions after I posted:

ALL of his AfD edits on June 11 were also only in discussions after I had commented and then he ends that with giving someone a barnstar for disagreeing with me:

As many know I tend to really engage editors in these discussions, but please note that I resisted replying to him in the above AfDs and DRVs. So, that's two days in a row where his only deletion related discussions happened to be in ones after I commented in them and in some cases even to or about me? Again, he did that AFTER Durova's mediation attempt. Not to mention in effect calling someone else a liar (see [11]) in one of those discussions, or saying to ban someone he disagrees with, which by the way is also made in a discussion after I had commented in it: [12]. So, even though someone says we should avoid each other; even though I did not comment in any AfDs after him since Durova made that suggestion (I deliberately avoided his most recent AfDs for that reason), and even though I avoided commenting to or about him in the above examples, he still saw fit to do so after me. So again, friendly suggestions and warnings and what have you just aren't working.

Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. Regarding the AfD, my suspicions is that it follows this comment, i.e. after saying, "Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources?" He then said, "Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources..." How else should one read that?

Please note as well that he stated on his Dorftrottel talk page the following: "they would have either reinstated my indef block from 2006, or they would have put me on a civility parole which I could never follow, not with so many idiots asking to be slapped in their stupid faces" and "Idiocy gets my blood cooking at any moment, it's the testosterone I suppose. Fucking for at least 3 hours straight gives me a window of about 15-20 minutes. What do men have four testicles for anyway?! Wouldn't two of those things be enough? Seriously though, it doesn't matter now. I'll stick around, but this sort of account-centered participation is increasingly, and already mainly, for dweebs." I do not think it acceptable for someone to avoid a potential block or civility patrol that they admittedly would not follow by continuing to edit with IPs calling those of us with accounts "dweebs," and then indeed using a couple different IPs to call others "assholes" among other things: [13], [14] (I didn't realize it was him at first, he edited Casliber's talk page, which I have watchlisted and I always welcome anyone who edits my watchlisted pages), [15], [16] (apparently hasn't really left, by the way), [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Again, Dorftrottel is now using an IP for incivility: [22] (calls an editor an "asshole"), [23] (evidence that it's Dorftrottel), [24] (now says he's going to keep editing with IPs), which he is doing: [25].

I don't think it's okay to abandon an account all dramatically than immediately start using an IP for swearing and insulting others. Notice the above are from different IPs and even to an ArbCom case and that he is doing it to avoid being blocked or on civility patrol. Thus, given the fact that he had already been blocked across fifteen different accounts and IPs, twice indeffed, and for such serious things as attempting to out an editor, and after the AN thread and his dramatic closing of the Dorftrottel account, I think something decisive needs to happen to adquately address these issues. And just so it is clear who we are talking about, ALL of the following are the same person:

78.34.133.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.141.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.143.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.143.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.145.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.169.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.170.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.172.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.173.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.173.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.174.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.175.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.146.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.149.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.150.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.151.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.154.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.155.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.155.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.191.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.229.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.227.191.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
AldeBaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kncyu38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Subversive element (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tit for tat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, here are the facts:

Dorftrottel has used at least thirty-one (31) different IPs and accounts.
He has been blocked a total of at least twenty-two (22) times, including at least four (4) times indefinitely for having an account "created to harass an editor," being a "suspected sockpuppet of User:JakeW," his "purpose for editing Wikipedia is to fight an ideological war", evading a ban and blocks, attempting "to out an editor," violating WP:POINT, incivility, and personal attacks.
With his latest account, he has already said regarding those he disagrees with, "I think the worst of them simply have clinical emotional issues and should seek professional help."

Users who endorse this summary:

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— CharlotteWebb 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii (complain) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter

I don't know that I've every actually butted heads with the individual under discussion. However, I have reviewed the page and these are my conclusions based on what I've seen on it.
I commend the editor involved for seeking input on what his problematic behavior might be. I would commend him even more if he were able to take these comments to heart. So far as I can see, and I acknowledge I haven't had much contact with this party that I remember, he seems to have some fairly serious problems with civility. He isn't alone in that, I'm afraid. Many of us have that problem at times. The multiple IP's, and apparently using them to engage in personal attacks, is another matter entirely. If, as seems to be the case from some of the comments above, the editor in question thinks that he would have difficulty abiding by restrictions, then I suggest to him that he do what Le Grand Roi has tried to do and avoid any conversations with editors with whom he has a history which could be seen as being problematic. The recent comments on Le Grand Roi's talk page don't give me a lot of confidence that he will be able to do so.
If the dubious conduct continues, I don't myself doubt that the civility probation the editor seems to want to avoid will become a reality. Having said that, I have to assume that this is an honest attempt to try to control the negative behavior. If he can, good. Le Grand Roi has proven to be a valuable contributor since his own reinstatement, and this editor might be as well.
However, if the editor continues to abuse and insult others, create multiple accounts for the purpose of engaging in incivil conduct, uses multiple IP's for the same purpose, and continues the type of conduct that he has gotten into trouble with before, then I think that a block, and possibly ban, will likely result. I sincerely urge the editor to seek input from neutral third-parties if he ever finds himself in a situation where he feels the urge to engage in problematic behavior, and, whether he can find such a party or not, to make every possible effort to avoid such conduct in the future. If he doesn't, I do honestly think a ban might have to be considered somewhere down the road. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (really need a mentor I think - see below)[reply]
Thank you for the kind comments as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper. I endorse this, except the part about multiple users. At no time as Dorftroteel ever used multiple accounts at the same time. He has been open and honest about his blocks and renames. I think (because he opened this RfC himself) that he knows that he needs to avoid certain areas/editors, but at the same time, he is not a sock abuser, not a meat abuser, and has unfairly been assumed to be such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I acknowledge the points made by Keeper above. I don't think I actually said he used them simultaneously, and my apologies to anyone for thinking that I did. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has used multiple IPs while using accounts, so I'm not sure how we consider that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has a dynamic IP, making it clearly impossible to "pin him down". He edits primarly wih a username, and his usernames (both blocked and renamed) have never overlapped. I've asked Dorf/Every/whatever to explicitly avoid you LGRdC, I'm hopin he heeds my advice. Thank you for your continued civility both here and on your talkpage where we've continued this discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but please keep in mind that that has already been tried at least twice before (see [26] and [27], for example). In any event, I recommend as other solutions 1) civility patrol (no more sarcasm in RfAs; try really hard not to swear at others and certainly don't call others "dweebs" or "assholes" or suggest that they are mentally ill), 2) limit to one account and avoiding IP edits altogether (I have been incredibly careful since Durova unblocked me to not accidentally edit logged out and I certainly didn't decide to just start all over with a new account sans block history), 3) finding a neutral, i.e. non-deletionist/non-inclusionist from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User to mentor him, 4) admission of all past accounts on current account's userpage, and 5) more willingness to change stances in AfDs when new sources come about a la what I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. I don't think asking for greater civility is that hard to do and actually may foster a better understanding among editors. Even with those who have made fairly harsh comments to me, please note that I still found somewhere where I could help them out in a civil and proactive fashion, which has had a positive result. Thus, being civil and helpful even to those we disagree with can be fruitful in the end. Remember the fable about honey rather than vinegar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like feedback and that other people occasionally point out the gaping holes in your logic and philosophy, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That same statement applies to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Granted, but~~ honestly, it applies to you quite possibly more than to any other Wikipedian I have come across so far. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I actively seek out advice from neutral parties, as evidenced by joining the adopt an editor program and by my willingess to change my stances in such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. You seem unwilling to seek mentorship or to give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt when new sources do turn up in some discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always had a comment at the top of my talk page which you apparently never read where I encouraged everyone to give me feedback. As to AfD's: I can only repeat myself: You shouldn't be talking about that issue; glasshouse, stones. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, etc. have had issues with me. Sure, I've had spirited disagreements with others whom I've found ways to work with constructively elsewhere, but I have certainly avoided calling those with whom I disagree "assholes" or "dweebs" or suggesting they are mentally ill. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is really your perception, it's high time for a reality check. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck and challenge LGRdC to point out a gaping hole in my logic. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my goal to try to discredit you or pile on comments to make you look bad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my goal to discredit you. And with frightening success: I challenged you and you didn't even try. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you have shown is that your intentions to edit here are apparently not constructive. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not try to come into conflict with others by attempting to discredit people. I will not be baited by the way. I have presented evidence of what I see as problematic with your editing history and offered several solutions that I hope you consider not based on who suggested them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the encyclopedia from you is the most constructive thing I can think of. Sincerely, Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this exact line of dialogue is proof positive that Dorf/Everyme/whatever has not, can not, or will not learn his lesson, which is not to view the project as an ideological struggle between him and the world. AFAIK, nobody died and made him "Lord Protector of the Encyclopedia." Stop being uncivil for any reason, stop trying to "discredit" or "challenge" people, and stop endlessly trying to solve your behaviour problems when you should simply impliment the solutions you are already fully aware of. You know exactly what you need to do to stop creating a problem here so start doing it. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deliberately to use a separate account to make dubiously civil comments divorced from editing is in my opnion not acceptable. It is in effect unconstructive, confusing, and gives at least an impression of being evasive. If nothing more, it confuses people about the possible use of multiple accounts in a way that would actually be sockpuppetry. DGG (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately to use a separate account to make dubiously civil comments divorced from editing is in my opnion not acceptable. — Absolutely agree, and I never did that. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this statement. I think it was very mature of you to start an Rfa on your actions, and I hope you will become more civil after this. If you don't stop then I also see you getting banned, and I would support it, but I would see to hate it happen.--SJP_Chat 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Seriously, I am rather lost for words, but OK, I guess what would be good is starting from scratch/with a clean slate/breath of fresh air etc. OK. I suppose it is nothing if not entertaining. My advice would be to stick to article writing or improving/sourcing content and placing oneself on a looking forward rather than back. You are obviously intelligent and blessed with a sense of humour (being a fan of Bill Hicks is a plus)...so unlike Anakin Skywalker, avoid the dark side. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, you may want to ask someone calm and mellow like User:Keeper76 to be a sort of wiki-superego or conscience for 6 months or so (or longer). Like a mentoring thingy sort-of-thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just stop being rude

2) It's not that hard. Naerii 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm trying, and will continue to do so. But seeing as people like Ryan Postlethwaite want me banned, I don't think it matters at all what I do. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly don't want you banned - I just want you to be a little bit nicer around the place. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what can I say. Seriously, what? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree, being civil is not difficult. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not until you try to talk reason into someone who just won't listen to valid points of concern about their behaviour. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could apply to/about you too, including this page which you set up but appear to be refuting all the points that people have raised. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the points? No, not all, just the assumptions of bad faith, preposterous accusations and personal attacks. I don't defend the incivility itself, but it can be explained without any of that. If more editors, esp. admins such as yourself, would step forward with similar concerns, I'd keep my mouth shut and just watch, or maybe weigh in only if some additional valid point occurs to me that nobody has brought up. My incivility, or definitely most of it, is due to the feeling of being the only one who realises a problem with another editor's behaviour and/or being the only one who steps in. Most importantly: You're wrong. I can and always do acknowledge better arguments in a discussion. And I never resort to incivility on a par with not acknowledging the valid points at the core of another user's concerns and instead posting a wall of diff which in the best case is just rambling nonsense and in the worst case is an ad hominem attack designed to distract and discredit the other person's valid points. LGRdC does both of that quite frequently. I don't. Please consider at least the possibility that I may have valid points regarding the things said about me in this page and elsewhere. Also, Casliber, please remember our discussion regarding my situation with Tennis expert. You dismissed each and every very valid point I made, you acknowledged none of my reasoning, instead you kept irrationally accusing and picking on me, telling me to make myself useful elsewhere — never responding to the things I outlined regarding the situation. You intervened out of nowhere, defending both bad editing and unfriendly behaviour of another user. Frankly, I don't think you are in a position to tell anyone, and particularly not me, that they are incapable of acknowledging other people's points. You didn't acknowledge my points before, no wonder you are not acknowledging them now. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Actually, looking back at our exchange at the time I realise I had meant to add something along the lines of a situation similar to the Euro 2008 one, but I got distracted. I do apologise for not being sympathetic and noting it at the time. You are sometimes right, but the manner you go about interacting with others at times is self-defeating and I wish you could see that.

As far as coming out of the blue. You often post in a cheeky manner to get a rise out of people, and surprise surprise it sometimes works. You have to accept if you are going to comment on and confront others then others may do it to you. By all means make rules but at least be fair and abide by your own. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm thankful to everyone who points out a failure to abide by my own rules, and I agree that this is a real bad habit of mine (not following my own rules too closely, and also insisting on strict following of the rules in others where I don't always strictly follow that rule myself). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just be civil! I myself have a small history of incivility. In March of 07 I got into an edit war, broke 3RR, and was rude to the other editors. Since then I haven't made uncivil comments. How? I don't edit when I feel stressed! If you don't edit when you feel stressed out, you'll be fine. Also, think whether your comments are civil or not before you hit the Save Page tab. I hope to see you around, and not be uncivil to anyone:-) Cheers!--SJP_Chat 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants anybody else to be banned, desysopped, blocked, or trout slapped

3) #REDIRECT WP:AGF.

With that out of the way, see Naerii's suggestion directly above. giggy _(:O) 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

How about redirecting AGF here ? :D Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in spirit with this point - the whole thrust should be that an editor should be a net positive to the project and not disruptive or tendentious. You have great capability to be a huge net positive but if over a period the dramas continue then...well I hope we avoid the situation. I really do. Your antics are funny alot of the time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Generally agree with the comments of the parties above, although there are young, smallish trout which might be appropriate for the occasion. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions proposed by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Dorftrottel account indefinitely blocked for long-term incivility, ignoring of warnings, and wiki-drama "retirement"

4) We have to clearly show that incivility, personal attacks, and disruption following numerous previous blocks and warnings will not be tolerated.

Comment by parties:

LGRdC, I get the strong impression that you feel threatened by the accuracy of my feedback. But you shouldn't be afraid of it. Try to see it as a learning experience instead. It's certainly not my goal to offend you, but it may happen while innocuously pointing out to you your sometimes considerably skewed perspective. You may not be aware of it, but I may be the best friend you ever had if you manage to welcome open and honest feedback. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't believe he should be indef blocked right now. I believe he's in many ways an asset to the project, and I don't think it would be a help to the project if he was gone. We should give this user one more chance, and the next time he does something like that he should get blocked for a while. I believe this user could be a great wikipedian, so we shouldn't indef block him.--SJP_Chat 04:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme will be this user's lone account

5) Strongly suggest avoiding IP edits as much as possible.

Comment by parties:

Out of the question. There is no reason not to do harmless cleanup edits from IP. More importantly, while editing from IP, I don't watchlist the pages I edit, and so in the somewhat likely case someone else reverts, won't be tempted to get into a fight. For that reason, I do indeed strongly intend to do a lot more IP editing. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, your IP editing makes your contributions spread across huge numbers of different accounts - that's fine if you're the perfect Wikipedian, but as you are surely aware, there's problems with your editing and there needs to be some form of accountability and ability for other users to check up to make sure the problems don't continue - IP editing makes this impossible. I would hope you would do this on your own accord. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. This is really strange coming from you, of all people. You are unmistakeably arguing for reinstating my indef block, and that would have one result, and one result only: I would most definitely evade that block by continuing with minor IP cleanup edits. OTOH, please show me where I have made a single bad edit from IP while my account wasn't blocked. One. One single diff, please. Just a single instance, a single example. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing to get your indefinite block reinstated for one second - I'm not sure where you get this impression from because I don't want you to be blocked. The problem is, you have used IP's the in the past to evade blocks, you have been uncivil with them during your blocks. When you destroyed access to the Dorftrottel account, you were uncivil with an IP - here's one example. The point here isn't one huge thing you've done wrong, it's a pattern of small things over an extended perious of time, and I believe one problem is the number of accounts you've used. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid example for two reasons: (i) at that moment, I did not have an account. (ii) Here's the response to that comment, which, I can only assume, you deliberately left out of your example. Incivility is in the eye of the beholder, and you cannot ever judge my conversations with another person when they and me agree, unless you're trying to be presumptuous. And I do get the impression that you want me blocked from the egregious bad faith with which you dismiss the fact that I have regularly made useful comments. Imho, you are intentionally trying to create the impression that I never did anything useful. Either that, or you're victim to a pretty bad case of selection bias. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that you've never done anything constructive, I'm suggesting that thing poorer things that people do tend to stick out more. And yes you did your Everyme account at the time you posted as an IP - unless the logs are wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I give up. So you're technically right, and yet you prove my point by dismissing the rest of what I said above. ~~Fantastic~~ ~~(struck sarcasm)~~ ~~(struck sarcasm)~~ (struck). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This user making new accounts often seems to be a way to avoid scrutiny, and that isn't an appropriate thing to do. I'm sorry if you aren't trying to avoid scrutiny by making new accounts, but that's what it seems like you're doing. I think its perfectly reasonable for him to stick with this account from now on.--SJP_Chat 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme placed on civility patrol

6) No more sarcasm in RfAs; try really hard not to swear at others and certainly do not call others "dweebs" or "assholes" or suggest that they are mentally ill.

Comment by parties:

I will certainly continue to tell my opinion and thoughts and reasonings as openly as I deem useful. If you don't like feedback, feel free to leave Wikipedia. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you do isn't what many would consider constructive feedback. As with below, should you decide not to become more civil on your own accord, you're going to end up with a community editing restriction, and if you don't like that, "feel free to leave Wikipedia". Ryan Postlethwaite 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching me about useful feedback, Ryan. Seriously though, you have apparently never so much as tried to find any truly useful comment of mine or to read any of my comments with AGF in mind. At least that's the feeling I get when I hear you actually say things like that. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read constructive comments from you, and when you make them, you're normally spot on. The problem is that uncivil and sarcastic comments are a lot harder to forget. If you upset a user with your comments, it can be in their mind for a long time and we end up losing good contributors, or alienating them from discussion, just because you don't agree with their stance on something. I'm sorry, but whatever your background message is in your uncivil comments, it's doesn't make it ok to say them. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) My uncivil comments are usually spot on, too, and that is the main problem people have with them. I don't think alienating the people on the receiving end of uncivil comments of mine has ever been a real danger at all — quite to the contrary, actually, which is the first and foremost reason I make those comments. They always address the most stubborn of people, those who can and will never get any insight into their own flawed logic and skewed perspective no matter how much constructive criticism their being offered. Also, the comments I react to as well as the indignant responses I receive are usually a lot louder and frequently even more uncivil, albeit not in ways that are described in the least common denominator of what constitutes incivility. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Most people are able to give feedback without gratuitous insults. I don't think it's asking too much for you to do the same. Raven4x4x (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your sentiment Raven4x4x, I often feel that Dorftrottel's direct, succinct messages (I said often, not always) are much less insulting than the long winded, overdiffified, never quite to the point, (tangential) ramblings that he gets in response from LGRdC. Always signed sincerely or best. If I may be frank LGRdC, they can be rather exasperating. Dorftrottel does cross the line sometimes, and there are several times where I'd just wish he would restrain himself. But LeGrande please, you need to see the part you are playing in this. As I said on your talkpage: two dancers needed for a tango. I do not endorse Dorf calling anyone an asshole by any stretch, but many of the comments directed at you or more specifically, at your philosophies of What Wikipedia Is compared to his, were valid criticisms, not attacks. And every time, it seems you link a string of diffs together that I frankly don't even bother to read anymore when I see them. Again, though Dorftrottel, you two are incompatible on Wiki. You'd probably most certainly get along in real life, wish you were on the same continent so one of you could buy the other one a beer. Please go back to leaving each other alone. Its a big Wiki. You both seemed to get by without crossing paths for a while, but these old wounds have all flamed up again. Sincerely ;-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a big wiki. Big and bloated and ready to lose some useless weight... Seriously though, you just gave me a possibly wonderful idea. LGRdC said that he couldn't afford a headset. Well, I can. I hereby offer to buy him one so that we can try and work it out per VoIP, which imho is our best and indeed a very good shot. It's not a beer, especially not a Czech beer, but my offer stands. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven4x4x, you're of course right, being snarky or sarcastic or offensive is never even potentially useful, but I resort to any of that only after I have tried rationally and when I get the subsequent feeling that nothing I could say is even potentially useful, that nothing I say would help the other person reconsider. Some people are just 100% feedback-proof (or they just cannot take it from me for some reason) and it upsets me when I get the feeling that I'm the only one who sees and reacts to that gaping hole in someone's logic (logic, or worse), when at the same time I see it clear as daylight right in front of me. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, you jump to the 'hopeless/nothing possible' position too quickly and then self-destruct - hence the need for someone to bounce ideas off. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for assisting in my 'self-destruction' by selectively picking on my behaviour and dismissing all of my valid points. Thank you so much e.g. for your constructive help with the Tennis expert situation, where I was clearly wrong and uncivil right from the start while the other user was totally friendly and made good edits throughout. Thank you for that. Sorry if that comes across as overly sarcastic, but seriously, what could I say to that? It's preposterous, coming from you. You chastised me and picked on me out of the blue and never acknowledged (let alone refuted with rationale arguments) any of my valid points regarding Te's edits and behaviour. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for not being a little more supportive (see above). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. You can state your opinion without being rude. Most people are able to object to someones opinion without being rude, and I believe you can if you try.--SJP_Chat 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme mentored by an experienced editor

7) Finding a neutral, i.e. non-deletionist/non-inclusionist from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User to mentor him or someone like Durova or Keeper76 that he respects.

Comment by parties:

Unuseful suggestion. I know exactly what I think and want and do, nobody could help me with that. That said, I will continue to listen to the input of people I hold in the highest regard, like Durova or Keeper76. But honestly, LGRdC, with regard to deletionism: You of all people shouldn't really talk about that issue... glasshouse and stones and all. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I will of course continue to listen to anyone's input, but like most I may instinctively assign a tad more weight to anything that comes from my personal list of great people, some of which I have btw almost never agreed on anything with (i.e., beyond the very framework). Unlike others, I'm not one to assign my love and respect according to who agrees with me and who doesn't, but to true quality I sense in others which may e.g. include just how they counter my points. Likewise, an invalid riposte often draws my immediate disrespect, which I cannot help (even more so when I'm already used to rather low quality responses by one person). I like to think that I'm quite capable of sensing true quality. Maybe I'm wrong. But assuming that distinct possibility is yet another quality of mine. Apparently, I'm great. Woohoo! (But why am I here, then? D'oh!) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith editors think highly of my comments in AfDs. I have only had actual disputes with editors who have been blocked for incivility, turned out to be part of sock farms, or some other serious issue. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. You just don't realise how much some established editors frown upon your way of AfD and DRV participation. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree, Dorftrottel doesn't need a babysitter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "babysitter", but someone to help him out so that we don't come back to here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per his own comments on this page, it is clear to me that Everyme may "know what he wants to say", but that what he wants to say can be and often is against policy and/or guidelines. On that basis, there is some evidence to think that, if nothing else, he could use some assistance in determining what he should say, which is not necessarily the same thing as what he wants to say. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme again acknowledges previously blocked accounts on his userpage

8) Honesty is important.

Comment by parties:

Out of the question. I did so before and you used it against me, presenting things I had openly disclosed a long time ago as if you had uncovered them through skilled sleuthing. I am not going to do that ever again. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, if this is really what people want, then I'm going to ask for User:Dorftrottel/disclosure to be restored and will place a link on the Everyme userpage. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would like to see you do this as well, partly because I enjoyed your "history" that you proudly wore. We all know who you are anyway. Just bury it somewhere in your subpages or something. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason we should require this off anyone - anyway, it's well documented in other places. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, e.g. on this very page. It just needs some cleaning up, to reduce it to the truly relevant facts and thus distinguish those from unuseful assumptions of bad faith, preposterous accusations and personal attacks against me which unfortunately also happen on this page. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds alright. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the conclusion of this RfC, Everyme and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles avoid each other

9) Per suggestion of Durova.

Comment by parties:

As per above, if you don't appreciate honest feedback, feel free to leave Wikipedia. I will continue to vigorously point out flawed logic where necessary and I deem useful. I'm going to do it as sparingly as ever, but if you perceive that as an attack on your person, that's your own problem not mine. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not our problem - if you aren't willing to be more civil volutarily, then you're going to get a community editing restriction. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was talking to the editor who put this here. He does have some difficulties with feedback and since his logic is sometimes horribly flawed, I may feel the need to point it out if and where nobody else does (but will gladly refrain from doing so where others decide to comment instead, or where the general atmosphere is one of appropriate disregard). You can not possibly be serious about restricting me from doing that (i.e. assuming good faith with you). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would probably be a good idea if you two do both avoid each other - friction does seem to be caused when you two interact but I don't think anyone's particularly in the wrong, it's just a clash of personalitites. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that, partly. Yes, it's a clash of personalities, but by extension, it's also a clash of wikiphilosophies which is something others should feel encouraged to weigh in on. Both LGRdC and me frequently meet resistance as well as receive positive feedback. Imho, I do have a point about his behaviour being problematic at least as much as he and other people do have a point about mine. However, as I tried to explain elsewhere, the situation is not symmetrical, and I'm not sure how LGRdC's side of the conflict can be addressed (which it should be, because just me shutting up about legitimate concerns of mine is not a very useful option). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We already tried mutual avoidance. It's still a good idea. Hasn't worked out though. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, in which case feedback on your (Everyme) behaviour is allowed too. Oh good, I'll keep an eye on this. Remember the notion of do unto others, and we'll see what is considered fair and what is not. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) (sorry crossed lines)[reply]

Everyme, if you dont want to shut up about legitimate concerns of yours, how can you expect that he will of his? DGG (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Quite to the contrary, I wish he would clearly state them for once, and in the appropriate venues. As I said above: The conflict is not symmetrical. His 'side of it' consists of things like rather questionable AfD / DRV participation (what with 88 edits to a single AfD and immediately requesting DRV after some non-controversial closures) and, maybe even more importantly as far as the particular conflict with me is concerned, RfA opposes based on the candidate's sound delete !votes in some AfDs where LGRdC's comments are far more questionable and far less agreeable (as evidenced e.g. by the fact that a fair share of the AfDs he quotes on such occasions have been closed as delete). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Since discussion has died down on the subject, I am closing and archiving this Request for comment. While I can't issue any binding resolutions, I ask User:Dorftrottel to do the following: Dorftrottel/Everyme is strongly encouraged to be civil in discussions, and to understand when comments may not be taken right. He is asked to show courtesy, and i also asked not to edit from IPs where it can be avoided. Furthermore, based on the comments listed, I encourage anyone who deems it necessary to request a civility sanction at the apropriate noticeboard if his attitude does not improve. Wizardman 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]