Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Without logging in an account.

Yup, it's assumption that he can be a scammer but the negative feedback was for shady behavior which isn't good when doing a deal.

There is no rule saying buyer should accept escrow's terms but you are missing the point. worhiper_-_ wants to put both seller and escrow to risk.

1. He wants escrow to check the details:

1.a: Escrow asks seller link to give the profile, seller gives a fake link and escrow is at risk.
1.b: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, seller gives and escrow checks it without changing password. Seller change password and tells escrow did it. Escrow is at risk.

1.c: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, escrow change it and look details. Buyer looks at log, find username and cancel the deal. Seller is at risk.

^^^ This is why worhiper_-_'s term is shady.

Safer term:

1. Escrow asks to fund the address and buyer funds it.
2. Wait for 1 confirmation(to protect from double spend), escrow asks account credentials, change password and look details.
3. Release Bitcoins to seller and account to buyer.

^^^ This is Quickseller's terms.

Leaving negative feedback for the shady behavior by worhiper_-_ is okay.

This would be all right and good if it weren't for the "default trust" list which, in my opinion, makes those on it too powerful to be operating on "oh i find that guy a little suspicious".  When/if someone on default trust decides you're a little suspicious, everyone who hasn't looked very carefuly into some obscure facts about the Meta of this forum basicaly thinks you got caught stealing or something: "Warning: trade with extreme caution".

I think that if they removed the default trust list on new accounts so that people actually had to build their own trust network with their own experiences then we wouldn't have so many of these threads.  It would merely be a matter of (in this case) Quickseller and worshiper-_- have decided not to work together.

Non of the above justfies you leaving misleading and unjustified negative trust ratings to users.

(Note, due to his anger control problems, I've still got Quicktemper on ignore, so I'm only replying because you quoted him.)

In my opinion the main issue here is that someone has been given too much responsibilty.  On the one hand, he should be quite allowed to put willy-nilly feedback reflective of whatever opinions he has into your feedback list.  The issue comes in that now he's a "protector of the new users".  The fact that he admits this in my opinion shows that the trust system is broken.  It's hard to see how quickseller's opinion on whether he wants to do business with you should amount to red letters that say "trade with extreme caution".

I can see two fixes, but I doubt either will be implemented:

1) Reduce Default Trust drastically (default depth of 1, perhaps, or trim the list down to just a handful of people, or both) or else eliminate it altogether.
2) Change the red letter "Warning: trade with extreme caution" to something more reflective of simple opinons.  "Note: this users is untrusted by a few important people", or something like that.

If either of these things were implemented, we would see a lot less Vod threads and feedback abuse threads in the Meta section and it's hard to see how it would make the forum anything but better and calmer.

You argueing semantics. The trust rating is factually accurate.

Negative trust is usually appropriate. The only exception to this rule would be when there is some change of circumstances that are reasonably out of any ones control and reasonably were not anticipated.

Edit: the vast majority of the I hate Vod/quickseller/tomatocage threads are made by scammers.

Like I said semantics.

The fact that I was acting as escrow did not influence the negative, although it did give me quick access to the fact/evidence that you backed out of a trade. If I was made aware of a similar situation with another escrow, and was shown proof then I would most likely leave a similar negative feedback.

The fact that my opinion is that people should avoid doing business with you means that I should give a negative. If I was saying that people should avoid dealing with you without escrow then a neutral would maybe be appropriate but probably not   

Who is Quickseller trying to be a carbon copy of Dogie or something. Welcome to the ignore list and I will be sure to warn anyone off that asks me about your services or sales. Run don't walk away from this unprofessional person.

Cripes the same sort of drag it out when a simple solution where you COMPROMISE would be sufficient to make everyone happy.

I can see why this guy defends Dogie they are brothers or something.

Worhiper it is obvious no matter how hard you try to make a logical argument this guy is never going to be swayed. Cut your losses neg rep him back for being a douchebag and move on.

Why? No one locked the dogie scam thread when quickseller swooped in and trashed people there.

I am sure we're all big boys and girls that allows people to comment quite naturally to the similarities in both people.

Irregardless worhiper is primed to make a few more posts to see if his logic might sink in... again I'd say just negative rep back and walk away nothing is going to change.

Screw that guy. never liked him anyway