Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theodore7

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leaving Wikipedia: My apologies 

message: :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.)
#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.
#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.
#"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do.  We must respect this principle as sacred.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Statement of principles

message: Please note that the user was not notified of his RfC until 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notification of RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: My understanding is you should go ahead and list it. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Submit? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Message to Theo about how to post on the RFC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Theo, please try to stay in your own section

message: 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 
* Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 
* Wikipedia:Verifiability
* Wikipedia:No original research
* Wikipedia:Cite your sources 
* Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
 
Working with others 
* Wikipedia:Assume good faith 
* Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette 
* Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers 
* Wikipedia:No personal attacks 
* Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point 
* Wikipedia:Resolving disputes 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Priorities

message: 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)
thread_title: Some practical RFC advice for Theo

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitration? 

message: 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)
replies: text: He has been bloecked for another week, already. —Ruud 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you! --Ashenai 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: URGENT!!!