Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theodore7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leaving Wikipedia: My apologies[edit]

NOTE: From Theodore7: My experience as a newcomer to Wikipedia has been horrible. Recently, I lost a good friend in a car accident and had to bury him. My heart is broken. That is why I was away. When I returned, I was surprised to find out that I had been blocked for a week. I did not know this, so had to wait until today to write. After careful consideration due to the bad experiences I've had since joining Wikipedia in December: I am leaving Wikipedia. I apologize to all who have had to spend considerable time on what I believe has been attempts at censorship and a witch-hunt. I also apologize to anyone who has taken offense to me. I did not join Wikipedia to be mean, spiteful, nor to fight with anyone. However, I apologize for my mistakes, and for my comments. They were not meant to do harm to anyone. I thought with my experience, and knowledge that I could be a positive member of the Wikipedia community. I cannot say my experience as a newcomer has been positive, it has not. I don't know why I was attacked, but having seen a good friend suddenly lose his life so horribly, I'm sorry, my heart is just so broken. Please forgive me. I am an experienced journalist & editor, and above all, a kind human being. I do know, however, when I am not wanted. So, I will leave Wikipedia. I am sorry for taking the time of others who have had to spend so much time on the RFC and Arbitration. I did not intend to be such trouble for anyone. I am so sorry.Theo 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of principles[edit]

As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and the license. This page, like all Wikipedia pages, is a living, dynamic document, which I will update and clarify as legitimate questions arise.
I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run, period.
(But have no fear, as you will see, below.)
  1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
  2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
    "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
    For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
  3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
  4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.
  5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
  6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself.
  7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
  8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.
See also : Jimmy Wales



Key word is working "positively."


Note: Please visit Chris Brennan's Talk Page for a record of prior discussions between himself and Theodore7. This may shed some light on what Theo says is Chris' campaign, along with PL - to bite a newcomer. Seems Theo did in fact approach Chris several times with offers to work together, and was rebuffed, as shown by Chris' efforts for an RFC against Theo - going against Jimbo Wales' policy & principles on Wikipedia newcomers like Theodore7.Theo 15:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Alas, the comments listed above reflect directly the sort of thing he has been doing on the Nostradamus article as well. While attempts are currently being made on the associated Talk page to reach some sort of rational accommodation with him, the article has had to be locked and protected first. It may be sensible to request this as well. To my mind, he is a prime candidate for banning from Wikipedia, since (to put no finer point on it!) he seems incapable of observing its rules. --PL 09:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Response: Considering your placing a personal flag that stakes a "claim" on the Nostradamus article PL, and treating me as your "opponent" from the very start - I can see why you would want "Theo" banned from Wikipedia after joining Wikipedia a month ago. That is what started this whole thing. If I had not stumbled onto your extremely negative POV on the Wiki subject, I shudder to think what you might got away with. I consider you very rude, and your edits on Nostradamus some of the worst I've ever seen on this subject. And that is saying a lot, since, as a Nostradamus scholar and expert myself, that never have I seen such a hateful treatment of a primary subject as Nostradamus printed anywhere expect here on Wikipedia, and of course, in your own work Peter Lemesurier. You should be ashamed of yourself. I mean this. For a man who claims to be an "expert" on Nostradamus, your edits, and Talk Page comments on this subhject are some of the most extreme POV I've ever seen as 20-year veteran journalist. It does not do Wikipedia justice. I know people who will not use your own work on Nostradamus because of your hostile treatment. Your prior writings on this subject reflect your similar edits on the Wiki-Nostradamus page. Moreover, your prior history shows that you have alinated Nostradamus scholars whom you've also falsely accused, as you've done here (without proof) of plagiarism. This includes Nostradamus himself. You should be ashamed of yourself.Theo 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One curiosity-based question: have either of you read Nostradamus in the original French (with tidbits of other languages and pseudo-languages thrown in for good measure)? Jim62sch 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very pertinent point! I have (and have studied ad infinitum) facsimiles of the original 1555 edition, (both copies), the 1557 editions (both of them), various copies of the 1568 edition, Nostradamus's cookbook, his major sources Roussat and the Mirabilis Liber, various of his Almanachs, reprints of his Latin correspondence etc. etc., and have actually handled one of the (admittedly antedated) Pierre Rigaud editions, as well as collaborating directly with such leading authorities as Michel Chomarat, Jean-Paul Laroche, Bernard Chevignard, Elmar Gruber and Roger Prévost. I have, in addition, studied 16th-century French (I hold a Cambridge MA in Modern and Mediaeval Languages), and have so far published no less than seven books on the subject of Nostradamus (between them translated into around a dozen different languages) – including The Nostradamus Encyclopedia of 1997 (which admittedly needs updating now) and Nostradamus: The Illustrated Prophecies (which reprints and translates all the original verses) – as well as translating online (with collaborators) the relevant parts of the Mirabilis liber and all of his published correspondence. Partly on that basis, I have more than once been invited by the Maison de Nostradamus at Salon-de-Provence to address official conferences on the subject – in French, of course. I have also helped organise the online Bibliothèque Nostradamus – a protected resource containing numerous original facsimiles.

I have therefore been able to quote some of Nostradamus's French words in the original editions in the current version of the article. By contrast, so far as I am aware, Theo has failed to post a single piece there in the original French, and persistently claims that Leoni's translations (from his copyright Nostradamus and his Prophecies of 1982, which he constantly plagiarises – by which I mean 'quotes without proper acknowledgement') are 'Nostradamus's original words' – almost as if he is unaware of the difference!

Re his points above:

1. I have never called him 'my opponent'. That term was somebody else's.

2. The edit of the Nostradamus article that is currently protected (to which I merely contributed) says neither that Nostradamus's prophecies were true, nor that they were false. Similarly, it does not say that he was either a true seer or a true fake. It simply states the known facts, as per the latest research by the sources listed. It is thus neither 'negative' nor 'hateful' about him. The only people it is negative about is commentators who persistently impose their own largely unsourced POV upon him. Theo seems extraordinarily sensitive to that (I wonder why)?

3. The word 'worst' hardly seems to qualify as NPOV to me, any more than 'you should be ashamed'!

4. I see that Theo has now taken to referring to himself in the plural. As he knows perfectly well, the only 'Nostradamus scholar' that I have 'alienated' is him – unless we include John Hogue! – and in the light of his various contributions I rather wonder about the 'scholar' bit!

5. Nostradamus's plagiarisation of Crinitus's 1504 verse against lawyers for his attack on astrologers in his verse VI.'100' is well-known and documented. Crinitus's verse from his De honesta disciplina of 1504, as reprinted by Gryphius of Lyon in 1547, reads:

LEGIS CANTIO CONTRA INEPTOS CRITICOS
Quos legent hosce versus mature censunto,
Profanum vulgus & inscium ne attrestato:
Omnesque Astrologi Blenni, Barbari procul sunto,
Qui aliter facit, is rite, sacer est.

Nostradamus's September 1557 version reads:

Legis cautio contra ineptos criticos.
Quoi legent hosce libros, maturè censunto:
Profanum volgus & inscium, ne attrectato:
Omensque legulei, blenni, barbari procul sunto:
Qui aliter faxit, is ritè sacer esto.

Since the authorship of this version isn't acknowledged (the differences in spelling are, of course, the printer's copyright!), ergo it is plagiarised (though plagiarism wasn't then regarded as the literary crime that it is today). But then Theo's 'scholarship' doesn't seem to extend to all this...--PL 11:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the spelling differences are highly likely mot due to the printer. The original is close to proper Latin, while Nostradamus version indicates a corruption of Latin based, in part, on the incorporation of French orthography. This is not uncommon with Nostradamus as he frequently altered words (or, perhaps, did not know the correct spelling of a word), and incorporated languages other than French into his quatrains. Jim62sch 15:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost! You are right that the spelling differences could have been due to Nostradamus's own miscopying. However, the evidence is that most of the misspellings in his texts are due to the fact that printing was normally done from dictation aloud at the time, and his almost total lack of normal syntax (he was copying Virgil's) meant that the compositor had little idea of the context of many of the words that he was setting (given that many of the pronouns, articles and prepositions were missing), especially when they were foreign place-names that he had never heard of. Consequently, he frequently printed d'eux for deux, d'ame for dame, and even sang, main for sang humain. The evidence of the Orus Apollo manuscript suggests that these were not the sort of mistakes that Nostradamus himself usually made. Hence my suggestion that the above errors were probably the printer's. However, it being Latin (with which Nostradamus himself was often less than accurate), you could, as I say, be right.

As for 'correct spelling', there was, of course, no such thing at the time where French was concerned. And as for 'incorporating languages other than French into his quatrains', this one is in a language other than French. It's in Latin (of a sort), as you well know! --PL

The French give spelling a bad name, period. In fact, had Harold defeated William, English spelling would be much more phonetic. Anyway, Nostradamus used Provençal, Greek and Italian words as well.

Yip, but I'm not so sure about the phonetic spelling. IMO French spelling is even worse than English, and not nearly as phonetic as German, Italian or Spanish (which is why kids from those countries usually learn to read faster)! Still, we're getting off the topic... --PL 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part of your reply regarding the MA in Modern and Mediaeval Languages. Well done, that's quite an accomplishment.
I don't know how anyone can claim to be an expert on Nostradamus absent reading the original is beyond my comprehension, thus Theo's posts would seem to be problematic. Most translations tend you go very far afield of what Nostradamus wrote, almost to the point of parody. In fact, in reading them in the original one realizes just how vague, and even devoid of meaning they are. Jim62sch 15:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PL and Jim - Please take the linguistic conversation to your talk pages, or the Nost. talk page, as this is beginning to digress from T7's Rfc. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely – and agreed! Hopefully, though, it will have thrown some light on whether I am really as (a) ignorant of the subject, (b) inherently hostile, (c) 'hateful to the subject', (d) negative, (e) 'difficult' and (f) rude as Theo constantly alleges in his defence! --PL 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RfC[edit]

Please note that the user was not notified of his RfC until 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) —BorgHunter (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't listed the RfC yet on the main page where they are submitted. I was waiting until the request was finished before posting it officially. --Chris Brennan 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submit?[edit]

So, should I submit this now and post it on the main RfC page, or should I wait for Theo's comments? --Chris Brennan 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is you should go ahead and list it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I've listed it, I didn't realize you were holding off on purpose. Please change the wording if it's not what you had in mind. But a request in Wikipedia space is official — is "submitted" — anyway; if something's merely a draft, it should stay in your userspace till it's good to go. Anyway, I don't see a problem now. You absolutely don't need to wait for Theo to respond; for one thing, some people never do. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, thanks for doing that. --Chris Brennan 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Theo about how to post on the RFC[edit]

Crossposted from User talk:Theodore7

Hi, Theo, I see that you are commenting on your RFC right now. I was going to move some of your comments to the right place — i. e. to your own section, "Response" — but I see from the timestamps that you may well still be editing in there, and I want to avoid edit conflicting you. The thing is, though, an RFC isn't like a talkpage: each section is intended for a particular user or users, and experience has shown that if people interject comment and rebuttals in the other sections, the whole thing will soon become impossible to follow or make sense of. That's why the format is pretty strict. Please note where it says "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" at the top of the page. Please write in "Response" only, that section is yours exclusively. The best thing would be if you moved all your comments there yourself, so that you get them organized the way you want them. I think you'll find it works just as well — better, IMO, since it means that your section also will not shredded by interjected commentary — and you can always label different parts of your text "Response to X", Rebuttal of Y", or whatever. For threaded discussions, there's also this talkpage. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Theo, please try to stay in your own section[edit]

Theo, I just moved yet another passage, that you'd posted in my Outside view section. Please try to remember about staying in your own section. And I have a comment about your plaint that the people posting on the RFC need to "walk a mile in newbie shoes". Has it ever struck you that we've ALL done that? Think about it. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed, thanks for correcting that. And to answer your question: yes, it has struck me, and if so, then many have surely forgotten what it's like, considering I've just heard from one Wikipedian who advised me concerning the widespread "revert wars" and just how common they are on Wikipedia. No wonder I've been accused of "reverting" - seems this crew seems to have had much more "practice" with reverts than I. Have you ever considered that I could possibly be telling the truth, and not only that, rather than "milking" the biting newbie line - but, perhaps, just perhaps, Theodore7 might just be the victim here, and maybe some others haven't been assuming "good faith" as the founder states Wikipedians should do? Have you all possibly ever considered that?Theo 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. The 3RR rule is one of the most unambigious rules we have and you've broken it at least twice, with accompaning warnings. You've been warned about reverting; and while many of us have been involved in revert wars, not to our credit, in my experience normal revert wars last no more than 5 to 10 edits. Someone reverting an article 40 times is exceptional, and a problem. More over, even the worst newbie would know that writing "corrected typo" for an edit changing most of the article is dishonest, especially when they know the change is controversial. That's not newbie; that's simple honesty.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV. Suggests "intent" and "dishonesty" without assuming good faith FIRST. You see, I am learning quite a lot from Jimbo Wales.Theo 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo, this is not a POV nor is it a violation of WP:NPA. It is a little blunt, that is all. AGF doesn't apply after you've been warned about something, or informed of policy, multiple times. Has it occured to you that a Request for comment is an opportunity to learn? Several people have opened Rfc's on themselves, to request feedback on their own actions. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are obvious limits to good faith -- should one readily assume that a thief who claims he stole only to feed his family and was going to compensate his victim later is acting in good faith? Jim62sch 03:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know Jim... I just lost a good friend who died in a terrible accident. I helped to bury him. That is why I was away. I am not a thief. I am a human being. I work and I feed my family. My recent experience on Wikipedia has been horrible, and I am considering leaving. I would appreciate it if you would not act as if you know me, who I am as a human being, and your expressions of "good faith" - your comments to me, and others suggest cynical views, not good faith. So, please, don't assume that you know me. I feel very bad, I lost a very good friend, my heart is broken. I don't have the energy for this. I am sorry for anything I have done that has offended anyone. I did not join Wikipedia to be mean, or to fight. I really thought I could be an asset to the Wikipedia community and help. I had no intention of being a disruption to anyone. I apologize to everyone who has taken offense to me. I will leave Wikipedia on my own.Theo 06:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities[edit]

Theo, Be bold is a bit of a slogan, yes - but it isn't the most important thing to know about how to edit on Wikipedia. If you look at the Policylist, it is as follows:

Article standards

Working with others

Please note that Be bold is not on the list. I suggest you stop citing "Be bold" so often; it does not trump any of the policies listed above. Your posts make it seem that you are excusing violating these rules because you were "being bold." I submit to you that you have mistaken what is the priority. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


First, I read did read what "be bold" means, and Jimbo Wales was by no means saying it was to trump anything - he is serious. Suggest you re-read it. He means it; especially when it comes to newcomers to Wikipedia. As for the list above: suggest, that, if you are really serious yourself KillerChihuahua, and willing to be of assistance, then take the time to read the history of all the players in this little "campaign" and see the comments and responses of everyone: especially when it comes to starting "revert wars", then blaming a newbie for a series of false accusations ranging from plagiarism, to hypocrisy, to edit wars and doing so when the opposite is true. When this occurs, to a newcomer, as Jimbo Wales suggests, it brings Wikipedia down, not raise it up. He is very aware of this, which is why he does not encourage one to be "meek." And, lastly, no, I am not excusing anything. I've admitted my mistakes, but I am not stupid. I can see, and record what is going on, and so are other journalists. Jimbo Wales is right. Try to find one of the accusors of the Inquistion who has done so to prove my point. So, you see, if you want to state your opinion, then please do so from being informed, first, assume good faith on newcomers, and take a step back and really check out the comments to me from day one.Theo 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to be blunt. You're not a newbie. You're in an Rfc. I am not talking about your previous interactions. I am speaking of your current interactions, here in the Rfc, including the post you just entered above. You are not being civil. You are quoting policy at others, but not following it yourself. Turn over a new leaf and be civil, please. I am indeed willing to help, in fact I took the time to put together that list above with links for your use. If you are willing to accept that help, an appropriate response might be "thanks! I will read those more carefully and try to be sure I always apply them!" You telling me to go read them would be appropriate if the situation were reversed, and I had been so obtuse and stubborn as to step on as many toes, and violate as many policies, as you apparently have. As it is, you are utilizing an ad hominem tu quoque argument, and it is not even accurately applied because I have not, in point of fact, committed the indiscretions you have. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua, allow me to be even blunter: I am a newbie. Been here one (1) month. Suggest you refrain from rewriting history since you are clearly wrong. As for not being "civil" - suggest you contain yourself from your obvious POV. If you are "willing to help" then do so without the assumptions. If you have not read all the materials, then you are not qualified to "judge" as you do here. As for stepping on toes - yes, I have, not on purpose, but surely exposing not only a POV revert war clique, but also a very biased Nostradamus editor (Peter Lemesurier) and a 21-year-old student of astrology who claims he is a professional astrologer. So, no, you do not know me. As for indiscretions: you must mean being a newcomer - which, of course, you will clearly say that I am NOT. I do not believe you since you will not accept the fact that I just got here to Wikipedia.Theo 21:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We assume good faith from the newbies, too, that they are actively trying to learn how to work with Wikipedia, and make mistakes because they don't know better. The fact that after you have been told repeatedly that your reverting on Astrology is inappropriate and you have had an RFC opened on you for that behavior, you have reverted the article twice, indicates to me that you either refuse to learn Wikipedia's standards or worse and more likely IMO that you have learned them but refuse to use them.--Prosfilaes 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one:

  • You're a newbie, in which case listen to those who are not, and read the policies, since you are too new to really have learned them. Back off from editing, and edit warring, until you have actually learned the policies. When experienced editors attempt to offer advice, listen.
  • You're not a newbie.

You cannot have it both ways. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This constant throwing about of Jim Wales' name is getting tiresome, as is your newbie stance. If you really cannot see that you are being disruptive then I must conclude that you are extraordinarily obtuse. If you can see that what you are doing is disruptive then you must feel either that you are smarter than the rest of us and know how to game the system, or that you can bludgeon us into submission. Jim62sch 03:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some practical RFC advice for Theo[edit]

Theo, the point of an RFC--request for comment-- is not primarily for two sides to argue; it's to get the community's input. Therefore the Outside views, and the number of signatories on them and on the original complaint, are actually more important here than how well or badly you defend yourself. This is simply because people are going to pretty much assume that the subject isn't going to agree that he/she has behaved badly (that's human nature, after all). Therefore, readers — Including the Arbitration Committee, in case this should go to a request for arbitration — will be more interested in what those you have interacted with think. See what I'm getting at? Your best next move would be, in my opinion, not to spend so much time arguing your cause, but rather to think about users you have worked well and interacted pleasantly with, and to consider asking for their input on this RFC. RFCs aren't very high-profile, lots of users out there never look at them. Is your perfect advocate one of them? Try to contact people who might speak for you. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Mediation?[edit]

So... it doesn't really look like this RfC is having any effect at getting Theo to scale down, or review some of his behaviour. At what point should this move to mediation? --Chris Brennan 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far he seems not to even recognize that he might have done anything wrong. Maybe give it a week or ten days and see if his behavior improves? Even if he won't admit error, maybe he'll change his behavior. Tom Harrison Talk 01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, if you're thinking mediation, the sooner the better. If you're thinking of going to a request for arbitration, then mediation is also an appropriate first step. Firstly, it might work (even though I admit it looks like a hard case), and secondly, if you try to go straight to arbitration, the Arbitration Committee would probably suggest mediation first. Please check out Wikipedia:Mediation for how it works. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this RfC is getting anywhere -- in fact, it seems that Theo's belligerent attitude has only gotten worse. He is either incredibly dense or is trying to game the system (my money is on the latter). This may be an appropriate time to move on to the next step. Jim62sch 03:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend delaying the next step for at least a few days at least, in the hope that it won't be necessary. Theo has been given a lot of good advice by various people, and it may sink in after a while. I'm not terribly optimistic, though. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Theo is fighting a 22-to-1 battle at the moment, so he won't be able to much damage. It would be preferable if some outsiders (people who have not been in conflict with Theo) would comment al well. After that we can try mediation. The worst that could come out of that is that we would have a stonger case if arbitration turns out to be necessary. 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm an outsider, it does not seem to be making a difference. I had one contact on his talk page prior to this. His basic attitude seems to be justifying anything he's done with one of the following: 1) They started it! 2) I was just Being Bold. 3) I'm doing what Jimbo says. None of those are mature approaches to anything. Total rejection of any concept that he might be able to improve his approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count myself as an outsider too, I have almost no interest in astrology or Nostradamus, and I only went to the astrology talk page because it was listed on the RfC-for-articles page. I haven't reverted any of Theo's contributions, and I really don't want to see him banned or to go away in frustration, as he evidently knows a lot about the subjects - I'm still hoping that he will start to co-operate. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done zero edits on Astrology or Nostrodamus to the best of my recollection (I may have reverted vandalism or added a period at some point) so like Squiddy I'm not anywhere near the disputes. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested mediation here. —Ruud 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with co-operating. It is those with obvious POVs that run counter to historical facts, that have the problem. I continue to cite sources (unlike most who are involved in this "dispute") and I am working with other Wikipedians who have no problem with me at all since they obviously care about Wikipedia and do not consider Pages to be their sole domain, and start "revert wars" based on their POV. I've made excellent friends here, and am not subject to being cornered by those with "problems with Theo." I've reverted vandalism, improved articles, cited sources, and continue to do so as a new Wikipedian. I've made new friends here, and expect to continue to do so while improving Wikipedia with my own areas of knowledge and expertise. I have no interest whatsoever in fighting, "confrontations", "revert wars" or childish attempts to "rewrite" history" by resorting to POV. Mediation is a two-way street, and does not happen with false accusations of all kinds on a member who has been at Wikipedia a little over one month. Anyone truly interested in working with me as a fellow Wikipedian, without the accusations, insults, profanity, ignorance, POV, rudeness, etc., is welcomed always by me. As for the others, if you participate in biting newbies, then stay away from me. I am not interested. Otherwise, I am all for working in good faith.Theo 10:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six days ago, Theo was asked to co-operate on improving merely the first two sentences of the Nostradamus article. To date he has (a) ignored the request completely (even though it has now been repeated twice) and (b) simply continued with his usual personal vituperation. So the prospects for mediation don't look too promising, do they? :( --PL 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and five days ago I wrote the "Some practical RFC advice for Theo" section above this one, advising Theo to try to bring in some editors that he has worked well and interacted pleasantly with into this RFC. Theo, did you see my note? Now I see you referring to these people in the vaguest terms, here on this talkpage. That's not the same thing; it's still just your voice talking about yourself. Look, do you realize that this RFC will be what the Arbitration Committee looks at first, if you should become the subject of a Request for Arbitration, as is discussed above? The way the page is at the moment, it'll make a frankly terrible impression. I've suggested a way you can remedy that. Please note that I assume good faith; you say there are "other Wikipedians who have no problem with me at all", so I assume there are. You should engage them on your behalf. But it's up to you. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC). (Edit conflict: sorry to stick this above some earlier posts, but it's a direct response to PL and Theo.)[reply]
(Ditto in this case!) Here are his responses to the request for co-operation on the Nostradamus talk page so far:
1. You know PL, it would be nice if you would quit with the extreme cynical comments, and worries about "Theo being around" and use this Talk Page properly. I consider astrology primary to the subject of Nostradamus (as does the author himself) and also consider the sources I cited more than reasonable. It would be very useful if you would end the very extreme POV edits, and source your views constructively, rather than making false accusations, as you have of plagiarism. You claim to know (ahead of time by the way) how things will go if the page is unprotected. I suggest that you stop claiming the Nostradamus Page as your personal property, and remember that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Let's go for being good, honest editors here and strive for balanced, open, and bold views that trust the reader - not alienate the reader. This is best. I also suggest that you may want to resist making assertions on others who edit, and assume good faith, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. With this approach, perhaps a very good Nostradamus article, without the cynical treatment of yours - could emerge. Theo is not going anywhere, and I suggest you stop seeing, and stating me as "your opponent" - I never was, and never sought to be one [and I have never used the term! – PL]. If you are looking for one, suggest you look outside the Wikipedia community. If you are willing to work together, in peace, and assume good faith, then I have no problem with that.Theo 13:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
2. PL, listen carefully: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and not your personal realm, ok? Every time you answer, your tone continues to sound exactly like the negative style of your books, and website on the primary subject. Does the statement above sound like silence to you? [It didn't refer to the request! – PL] I suggest you review your comments to me and others since December on the archived Talk Pages, and tell us, just when did you decide what "truth" was to be added to the Nostradamus-related & sourced facts? Considering your own edits, and anti-Wikipedia POV - I think the Nostradamus Page is better off protected until more time passes, rather than you hovering over it like a vulture. I'm already seeing the same kind of POV on the German-language version, and I am not surprised at all at your "edits" - they are quite narrow POV. I suggest that until you have distanced yourself from claiming the Wikipedia-Nostradamus page as your own, and wanting me off Wikipedia so you can return to destroying what could have been a bold, enlightening, and reader-friendly subject - that the page remain protected. As for your comments... well, if you continue to nit-pick everyone with something positive to add - sourced, and cited, I don't see, in your current state of mind, and lack of objectivity on Wiki-Nostradamus, ready for any "constructive work" on this subject. Re-read Jimbo Wales.Theo </wiki/User:Theodore7> 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
3.Would suggest you get back to actually working alongside others, rather than your assumptions - and it is an assumption on your part Peter - toward being "confrontational." Suggest you quit with your tactics, and work towards balance, rather than your POV on this subject, which has proven to be not only in error, but negative POV. Thanks.Theo </wiki/User:Theodore7> 08:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Real co-operation, don't you think? ;) --PL 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


On 19 January, Theodore7 reverted Astrology to the version of 14 January, dismissing the intervening work of about fifteen other editors(diff). Of course another editor immediately restored the version everyone else had been working on, so the disruption was minimal. Barring a dramatic change in his approach, I don't see Theodore7 ever usefully contributing here. Mediation is the neccessary next step. I hope it does some good. Tom Harrison Talk 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He also pulled a 3RR today on the Judicial astrology [1] page, although apparently no one has blocked him for it yet. --Chris Brennan 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't 3RR violation. It has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours to get blocked. --BorgQueen 16:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My mistake. --Chris Brennan 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This rule should really be tightened, as is in practice means that you can perform 5 reverts before getting blocked (as the first one doesn't always count as a revert). —Ruud 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point; the three-revert rule is both tighter and looser than it looks. It's not a license to revert three times in every twenty-four hours, as some may think. Tom Harrison Talk 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can see as a new Wikipedia user - there are many - including some on this request for comments - who have performed several reverts, and openly take part in "revert wars." My own initial reverts were done in error, since being new, I did not understand this, until I was pointed in the right direction. After several mis-steps, I corrected this; also being led to the numerous "revert wars" by an administrator who was kind enough to inform me that it was very common in Wikipedia, and gave me valuable advice in avoiding them. Moreover, I continue to find it frustrating that some on this RFC are among those who, in my newcomer view, have some of the most POV entries on the subjects in question. Few cite sources, but when others cite them, they yell, accuse, and attack, as if they actually own the Wiki-page in question. There have been numerous attempts, such as the one Chris Brennan made, that I "reverted" and requesting a block, when in fact, I had not. This same sort of "jumping the gun" has been done in the single month I've been a Wikipedia editor; yet, some, act as if I am their avowed enemy. I am not. I have been monitoring their edits, and reading more on Wikipedia's guidelines, and Jimbo Wales' principles in order to become a better, and useful Wikipedia editor. So far, I've learned a lot, and it has proved very helpful in my edits so far. I intend to continue to follow and adhere to Jimbo Wales' advice, and suggest the same from others on this RFC.Theo 08:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to report back here in due course on current attempts at an accommodation with him on the Nostradamus talk page. --PL 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration?[edit]

It seemed for a while that Theo gave up and quietly left. You may or may not have noticed that he has returned together with his old habits. Given that literally dozens of people have tried to reason with him, I have strong doubts that mediation would have any kind of effect. I think it is time to take this dispute to the ArbCom. —Ruud 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Theo's edits today consist of reverting, lying in edit summaries, and the familiar self-justification on talk pages. This RfC and lots of good advice seem not to have produced any effect. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another assumption, false accusation, and outright lie - among the many from those who do not know me. A friend of mine died after a terrible car accident. I was a pallbearer at his funeral. I do not lie in edits, nor "revert" to "war". I suggest, as a newcomer, that when I receive "good advice" that I be allowed to use it before the vultures set in again. As of now, I am thinking of leaving Wikipedia altogether. The experience has been horrible for me, and since I joined in December. Perhaps that is what some want to see as Squiddy said: for me to give up.I don't seem to be wanted here. So I will leave.Theo 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo has been indefinitly block by User:BorgQueen and re-blocked for 24 hours by User:Bishonen. I have listed this case on Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. —Ruud 12:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Commiserations to Theo for his personal loss. Nevertheless, for his latest contribution to the Nostradamus talk-page, please see here. Things don't seem to have improved. --PL 11:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commiserations. Now, on Nostradamus Peter, I will not fit into your desire to have me meet and agree with your point-of-view Pl. One-size does not fit all. I've stated my views on what I consider to be your very poor entries on the Wiki-Nostradamus Page, and your desire for it to conform with your POV - which, is not neutral in the slightest. Moreover, you are also doing the same thing with others on the Nostradamus Page who do not subscribe to your obscure views, and attempts to re-write history on this subject. It is not encyclopedic whatsoever; lacks clarity, honesty, and scholarship. What your personal reasons for this are unknown, but, you obviously continue to trash the primary subject, and, moreover, fail to trust the reader, or to quote the author himeself. So, things don't seem to have improved with you.Theo 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT!!![edit]

Aaaaarghhh! He's just started vandalising the Nostradamus article again (repeatedly) with his usual ignorant fiction and unsourced claims, exactly as before. He has also indicated on the relevant Talk page (see reference above) his complete refusal to co-operate over editing the article. So, given that he has now indicated his wish to leave Wikipedia, perhaps this is the moment finally to give him a helping hand? I do hope so. Some of us are having to resort to some rather undiplomatic language with him, which might not be a pretty sight... Come on, Admin! --PL 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been bloecked for another week, already. —Ruud 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- but a fat lot of good that will do! Unless he is blocked permanently, he'll be back... --PL 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange for an author to seek censorship Mr. Lemesurier. You are not the only Nostradamus scholar on the planet... though you write as if you are. And, yes, I will be back PL - with others who are noting your Wiki-entries on Nostradamus. I find your above statements part and parcel of your attacks on anyone who you do not agree with. Apart from some, I've actually read your books on Nostradamus, and you have a very bad habit of lying, and making false accusations ranging from plagiarism to vandalism - false & wild accusations on anyone who does not share your obscure, and very particular "point of view. As you know, your comments are saved, and noted. I would suggest that you refrain from making any more false accusations, as you may be subject not just for slander - but for libel. I suggest you look up the word. As for resorting to "undiplomatic language" Peter - any review of most new Wikipedians who've had contact with you on the Nostradamus Talk Page that is archived will reveal how you have repeatedly attacked, and refused to co-operate with anyone whom you feel "threatens" you in some manner. Your hostility is well-known in the Nostradamus community; as is your propensity for errors, and mis-statements of historical fact. However Peter, there are many other eyes watching, and, taking copious notes on your entries on this subject, and, as Peter Lemesurier, your constant additions of your own "original" research to the Wiki-Nostradamus topic. You are gaining quite the reputation for yourself in the Nostradamus and journalistic community Peter, and I suggest you clean up your act before you tarnish it even more. I wrote to you about this before, but, in your haste to censor Theodore, I think you forgot.Theo 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you! --Ashenai 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theodore7 is under a 1-year ArbCom personal attack parole; per that ruling, I have blocked him for one week for this attack on PL. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Theodore7&oldid=65150188"