Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence

Merit of case
I believe this case lacks merit on the grounds of the ban/block of any user from evidence presented in this case and earlier.
 * There are alternitive dispute routes either that need to be taken or developed. The proposed decisions already implement some of the developed dispute resolution along side of implementation of ban/blocks. I consider the later more extreme. No evidence presented is deemable as complete and utter vandalism despite the hyperbolic aggravation. This is a social dispute. Censorship is not the answer.
 * I encourage everybody to still edit. If any kind of conflict arises, there are alternatives. Take for example the method I chose on Joan of Arc: Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive02. (This is not presented for any more depth to evidence here. It is not meant to involve any others the example is subject to do. It is only an example as an alternative without escalation or reversions. Note: after a page protection, collaboration resumed and progressed. "That point is," users were able to agree without direct intervention besides a page protection.)
 * I presented evidence to dispute the merit of the case and not to further do any tit-dor-tat style of action. It is unquestionable there is a problem. It is unquestionable that part of the proposed decisions are very fair. I also am aware that within the probability of complete implementation of the proposed decision there is absolutely no win.
 * As the proposed decision has only one exit, I refactored my addition to the case: 14:01, 9 February 2006.
 * I sent mail to one of the ArbCom members before I posted here. I encourage the member to post it if it even it is thought that I have sincerely acted in bad faith. I hate to see wikipedia on one hand want to expand its userbase into to rest of the world to those who barely able able to have the chance to use or contribute such knowledge and on the other hand make social outcasts of those that do contribute. &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still encourage everybody to continue to edit and add to the breadth of human knowledge the only way possible: without censorship.
 * I rest my case. &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement of principles

 * 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.
 * 1) "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do.  We must respect this principle as sacred.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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

Comments in Defense of Theodore7: Attacks from Wiki-user Ruud & Others on a Wikipedia Newcomer
''In writing my defense, I apologize to arbitrators for its length; however, since I have been accused of so many things in my short time as a Wikipedian, I've had to do this alone, by myself, and have tried to keep it as concise as possible. I am not expert on using Wikipedia's templates, so I've had to organize it in this fashion. Hopefully, someone will come to my aid and assist me in making it better. Thanks for taking the time to read my defense. I am sorry for having to put anyone through the trouble.'' - Theodore7

THEODORE7's DEFENSE: Comments & Evidence of Biting A Wikipedia Newcomer

First, I deny these accusations, which I consider false, that I ever sought to engage in "revert warring." I state again that I did not know what that was prior to joining Wikipedia. I also deny that I ever used "misleading edit summaries". A careful review of my edit summaries will reveal that I made edits, corrected typos, and added sources. Normal for Wikipedia. Moreover, I have corrected, and reverted vandalism on astrology-related topics. I believe in participating in being a Wikipedia member that I stumbled onto what is called "revert wars" - which my edits have been subject to. A careful examination will not only reveal honest, and common mistakes by newcomers, but also will reveal what appears to be very hostile attacks by some who have very biased views - that are shown by their hositlity on Talk pages, and refusal in manner cases to not cite veriafiable sources. I asked things nicely, and requested matters with respect in my messages to Ruud.

My first contact with R.Koot, or Ruud, was hostile. He reverted a minor addition to a topic I was working on in Algorithm. I added material, verified, and sourced it. He immediately took issue although I agreed with another editor (Pradeep) to not change it until Pradeep had time to read my source material. I have not heard from Pradeep, and remain true to my promise. While Pradeep and I were in the middle of this, Bunchofgrapes suddenly appeared. Although my addition was first two sentences, then a paragraph in the history section of the Wiki-topic (hardly a re-write) Bunchofgrapes inserted himself here:

My two cents: al-Khwarizmi may have been a great many things in addition to mathematician and astrologer: writer, swordsman, home chef, whatever. This article should not list them all. His role as mathematician is the relevant one here. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I worked past the interuption, and continued with Pradeep:

Theo, let's strike a deal here: Do we have a deal? &mdash;Pradeep Arya 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me time to read your sources. My marriage reception is on the 14th, and I'm travelling to the United States on the 18th. After that, I'll go to the library and find your sources and read them. Then we can talk about it.
 * In return, I ask that you please not modify the article from mathematician to astrologer; to avoid pointless revert wars regardless of who is correct.

Congrats by the way on your marriage Pradeep. I have no problem; however to have a mutual agreement, I would suggest that both terms astrologer/matematician - as one line - be added in your article section. We will leave my edit, w/ the Boyer attribution w/paragraph, out of the history section until you've had the time to read the sources. Agreed?Theo 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for the consensus, so I can't say "astrologer/mathematician" is an okay edit. The thing is, you've given a source, but nobody can verify that source yet. So like science aritcles, it needs peer review before it gets published. Changing the article without the peer review puts the cart before the horse, if you know what I'm getting at.

Please give me the time to read your sources. In the meantime, not making a change to the article avoids stirring up the ill-will of the other editors here. If you are correct, I'll have a much easier time convincing them of that fact if they didn't have to fight a revert war every day for a whole week.

Ultimately, everyone has to be convinced, and as you've already noted, the anti-astrology POV can be quite strong, especially in science-related matters. Trust me, getting your version up for five minutes every day isn't much of a victory when you lose the good faith of the other editors working with you.

Just give me a week, that's all I'm asking for. &mdash;Pradeep Arya 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Well said. Yes, I will agree to this. Take longer than a week. I am not a jerk. I'm not pushing POV. I just enjoy seeing the facts of the matter included - and not denied - based on ignorant, and sometimes hostile POV. At least you are willing to go and read the sources. So, take longer than a week. I'm not looking for a "victory" Pradeep, just the facts not being shoved aside to support POVs that are "anti-astrology" - while not even knowing what applied astrology is, and it sure is not "sun-sign newspaper astrology." POVer's not wanting to admit the historical facts that are sourced, and verifiable - while pretending to be the "voice of science and reason." What kind of "reasoning" throws out historical facts, and denies a science as astrology as false when they maintain little knowledge of it, do not practice it to be qualified to peer review? Science is verb to me. Not a staid noun. However, I do agree with your assessment Pradeep. I am tough-minded, but am not closed-minded, or a rude cynic, or ignorant, not to be able to listen, because I do listen to common sense and good advice. And your request is both. So, I will agree to this as long as you give your word, and will be honest enough that when the historical facts bear out as sourced, and verifiable, that you will then be able to help support the factual position, and expand on the piece without the "anti-astrology POV" based on ignorance of the subject, and denial of the true history. That's all I am asking. Ok? Other than this, I will have to agree with you, because you make perfect sense in this request. Have a wonderful reception, and trip Pradeep. All the best to you and your new wife.Theo 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

However, after this agreement with Pradeep, Ruud appeared to follow me around on other topics - instantly reverting them and leaving rude comments on edit summaries. It was like I was being stalked or something. He just reverted edits constantly, even when I cited sources, and asked him nicely to stop. He then decided to go to the Wiki-Astrology back and revert any edits with my name on it, while not adding anything himself. I asked him to please stop:

Dear R. Koot, would like to know why you continue to revert back on the Astrology page that is unsourced, from my cited sourced version. If you must do so, it would be kind of you to use the Talk Page, rather than to engage in your POV in the edit summaries, which is your POV, by the way. Thanks.Theo 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV. R.Koot 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are continuing the same thing you've done from the very start. How can you claim to be NPOV without sourcing, yet, you will enter your point of view without citing sources? One-line, or one-word responses are not being open, nor balanced, R. Koot, and if you review your comments on the Algorithm Talk Page, for instance, it would be preferable if you would put a clamp on the cynical comments, and explain what you consider POV in an intelligent manner. This would help greatly. Thanks.Theo 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypocrit. R.Koot 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would you write such a thing?Theo 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep trolling? R.Koot 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you either become a serious Wikipedian, or refrain from your instant reverts please. That would help greatly to improve things. Thanks.Theo 15:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[For the record, I did provide a source, namely al-Khwarizmi's biography at the MacTutor archive. Other sources I've read are consistent with it, including Encylopædia Britannica. Theo, however, has refused to quote from his source. &mdash;Ruud 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)]

Really? Suggest you re-read the Talk Page, and the article I edited. Does adding sources, and citing them sound like a refusal? I suggest you are up to something nefarious, not honest, and clearly hostile to a newcomer with fresh eyes who has not been part of a clique. Note: you provided a "link" - not a source.Theo 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Would kindly suggest, again, R. Koot, that you please stop reverting the Astrology Page back to the unsourced article. Thanks.Theo 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would kindly request, Theo, that you please stop reverting the astrology page and discuss the (substantial) changes you wish to make on the talk page. —Ruud 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have missed them. They have been there for a month or so. Besides, my changes are sourced, and cited. Try assuming good faith rather than engaging in revert wars, which, from my understanding, is exactly what you've been doing. I don't believe you.Theo 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I discovered later that he added, and signed the RFC on me. After a single edit by me on the Wikipedia subject al-Khwarizmi on February 1 - I later found this message from Ruud to me:

I have taken the RfC on you to the ArbCom. —Ruud 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruud avoided my attempts to calm things down, and just kept up the attacks on me. After Feb. 1, I did not go again to the al-Khwarizmi Page after this to edit. It was obvious that he placed his flag on the topic, and guards it like a hawk. He continued these on the Wiki-topic on al-Khwarizmi where a simple viewing of Ruud's edit history on this subject will show that he has staked a claim on this subject, numerous Three-revert violations - as much as 22 times in a row on the same day! With no blocks on Ruud for numerous violations of the 3RR. Yet, this is the person who claims that I am "revert warring" and brought me before arbitration for it?

Bunchofgrapes, who, as a Wikipedia English administrator, had found the time to block me for violating this rule. When I complained about a Wikipedia technical error page popping up on my screen when I pushed the Save button, he dismissed this out of hand, and suggested I was even lying. Yet, with Ruud, he seemed not to be able to even warn Ruud of his numerous violations of the Three Revert Rule, when Ruud regularly violated this Wikipedia rule numerous times right into February 2006.

Moreover, the use of the term "reverts" seems to be substituted as some sort of hostile action. This has never been my intention. When I add material, and edit, it is not to "revert" but to add information, correct typos, and to remove inaccurate, and false materials - often, not sourced at all. When I made revert errors, such as the 3RR rule - it was out of ignorance, then technical problems. When I mentioned these, it was treated out of hand, as if I were a long-time "revert warrior" - when I just recently joined Wikipedia. I was surprised at the immediate hostility. After several mis-steps, I took time off to review Wikipedia principles, and guidelines, and took the advice to read Jimbo Wales' guidelines. I have done so.

However, I have come upon some who seem to have a history of their own in attacking newcomers to Wikipedia. I learned of this after the fact. Moreover, if one takes the time to look at my comments - in context - to comments from those who complained - I offered apologies for my mistakes, and requested help. I received this help from two people - however, the others, noted on my RFC page, continued to take edits, adding & citing sources - as something "personal" and their own comments on their Talk Pages reveal this. (Note: I subsequently discovered that most who wrote very rude, and hostile comments to me have deleted their comments from their Talk Pages, or perhaps removed them, but have taken my responses out of context, and pasted them into "building" a case against me.)

For instance, evidence such as the following, when I took time off to attend to my friend's furneral, and returned days later to check messages, I found this from Bunchofgrapes, who seems to have taken to repeatedly insulting me; not helping a newcomer whatsoever, and not acting in good faith as a Wikipedia administrator:

Theo's awake again Have a look at his recent edit history, if I can bother you to. Maybe it's just blind rage speaking, but I'm feeling like it may be RfArb time. I'd value your opinion on that. And now to sleep. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ZOMG, look at that. The RFC has improved his attitude, hasn't it? RFAR now, go, go! But mind that blood pressure. Blocked for 24 hours, incidentally. I'm utterly uninvolved with the articles and all content issues, and will continue to block for this kind of conduct if necessary. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm sure you've seen the RfArb by now; as always, I'm sure a comment from the very-respectable-Bishonen would lend it immediate weight. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the best. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

''And this. I did not know I was blocked, or the reasons for it'' and here, Ruud continues to seek to have me banned while seeming to notice before I did that my indefinite block by BorgQueen was shortened the same day he sumbitted the RFC on me to ArbCom. I was totally in the dark and did not know this:

Did you noticed that you shortened Theo's indefinite block by User:BorgQueen (although I personally think only the ArbCom should impose indefinite blocks)? —Ruud 12:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruud, you make a great point. There is far too much cowboy attitude going on.  Blocking usernames indefinitely is sanctioned for everyone, but people have gotten so used to that that they've begun slapping indefinite blocks indiscriminately, and BorgQueen is way too new to be doing that.  (I'm over-exposed, so this is not to be understood as an opinion that I will back up anywhere.  I'm so nauseated by the debates I'm already in that I haven't enough Dramamine for another.)  Geogre 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm so nauseated by the debates I'm already in that I haven't enough Dramamine for another. You too, eh? android  79  14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ruud, no, I didn't see that. I searched the log, but apparently I didn't do it the right way. It would be helpful if blocking admins put a note on the person's talkpage like they're supposed to. :-( Bishonen | talk 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your notice, Bishonen. I have lifted the block, and you are welcome to impose a new finite block that is more appropriate for this situation (but 24 hour block wouldn't have much point in my opinion, since the user in question has had even a 48 hour block before and it obviously didn't have any corrective effect). I will leave it to you. Regards, --BorgQueen 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7's Defense, Continued: When I first joined Wikipedia it was to add my knowledge of astrology, and Nostradamus to the Wiki-Nostradamus Page. I found many inaccuracies in the Wiki-Page on the subject. I began adding information, and was immediately attacked by a person named PL. (See archived Nostradamus Talk Page of Dec. 2005). If one visits the Talk Page, and reads the history, it will be noted that others have also tried to find balance on the Wiki-subject. It was thus protected for a time in January. I agreed with the protection to allow more discussion to take place.

The list of signers on my RFC all talk as if they know me, and write as if I have been a Wikipedia member for years. They make smirking comments about what I am going to do before I do it, and on and on. Some,like PL, on the Nostradamus Talk Page, ask me questions and answer the questions for me before I've even had an opportunity to answer myself. There is so much wild assumptions passing off as fact that it boggles my mind. Jumping to conclusions, blocking, re-blocking, smirks, profanities, personal attacks, revert wars - and I just got here.

February 13-14 will be 60 days since I signed up to Wikipedia and the first 30 days were accusations upon accusations on Theodore7. Corrective effects? The only effect was to give me a headache from the onslaught of assumptions passing themselves off as facts, when they certainly were not. Mistakes? Mis-steps? Certainly, I admit to that, but painting me to be "revert warring" and attacking people on purpose - no - that is not what I am about. I did not join Wikipedia to be a troublemaker.

I am not "revert warring." I add data, sources, materials, and edit, as anyone does within the Wikipedia community. I have taken more time to avoid mistakes, but my mistakes are being treated as some sort of "mission" - which it is not - or some attempt "war" - which it is not. These accusations are made up - false - and forced on me to defend. Very few ask me, but assume, and then create a drama out of nothing.

A close look at my additions reveal mistakes, common to Wikipedia, but nothing to deserve such hostility, and taking things personally. I am new here, and to force such terms as "revert wars" on a newcomer who did not know what revert warring meant reveals that something else is at the core of these attacks. Others have also gone through this and in my view, it is damaging Wikipedia's reputation. When I've apologized for mistakes, errors, it is passed over, and not responded to. Some who have joined in this "cause" have led me to believe that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a honest source of information that is not biased. Taking things personally, refusing to acknowledge mistakes, and apologies for them - is not acting in "good faith."

I've learned a lot about Wikipedia, and have taken more time to closely read the principles, and guidelines. But, from my new experience, and perspective on those who have complained loudly - in my opinion, they haven't read these guidelines, and principles themselves, and have not acted in good faith in many situations with me.

In one month of being a member of Wikipedia, I have been falsely accused of:

Plagiarism by PL Revert Warring, Personal Attacks by Bunchofgrapes, Chris Brennan, R.Koot & others A Vandal

I have done none of these things, have never plagiarised in my life, nor am I a vandal, and I did not participate in "revert warring" - but, it didn't matter with some people. The accusations and the biting continued.

The word "reverts" seem to be used as some sort of immediate blame, and attack word. It is quickly issued when edits, and information is added to a page. I don't understand it. To me, when an edit is made, it is done under the individual's name, and when saved, it is entered onto the Wikipedia page. I've had many of my additions, and edits "reverted" - as if it were some sort of game. The edit summaries (if one looks at them) are used as some sort of attack lines with personal attacks; while my edit summaries included what I did; i.e., corrected a typo, made a minor edit, and adding sources. What I've noticed is that few additions are made, or sources cited, but that what some have accused me of doing - "revert warring" - that I have been the victim of this. However, edits are saved in the name of the person who made the addition, and this allows for more information to be added.

If the Talk Pages were really used to share information, knowledge, and ideas, then perhaps consensus on many topics could be achieved. By my new Wikipedia experience has been, for the most part, that some believe others are "dissing" them personally, when what is happening is that additions are being made, and materials added, with sources. I have some encounters that are positive, in that the response has been good, and topics made better.

However, I stumbled onto a crew of some editors, who have a history much longer than my own, of "revert warring" and they use this term so loosely that even newcomers are immediately accused of it. The first time I was accused - I didn't even know what it meant. After mistakes, I made corrections, and am still learning. But it is hard with the hostility, the personal attacks, the lack of assistance, and the very negative point-of-views, that is not neutral, inaccurate, and not encyclopedic.

I dispute the claims made against me. Moreover, I claim to have been attacked, and in Wikipedia language: "being bitten" as a newcomer. This is not "milking" as one suggested - but my experience. Edits, and Wikipedia entries of materials, references, and sources are treated as "reverts" with little proof of my intention. Rather, I am being "told" what I am doing as if I am being hostile just to be disruptive. I am doing no such thing. I first found out about biting newcomers after several failed attempts to gain balance on the Nostradamus Page after reading a reference referring to Jews as Pigs in Spanish slang placed in the introduction to Wiki-Nostradamus. As a expert in astrology and a Nostradamus scholar I found this reference highly inappropriate, and very much out of place. I informed PL of this. He later called on banning me. It was a reply to him from Borghunter in January that I discovered Jimbo Wales' guidelines on not biting newcomers. Like "revert warring" I did not know what biting newcomers was on Wikipedia before seeing this link by BorgHunter in response to PL's request to "ban" me:

Hey there, Why do you think that Theo should be banned? Such a block, I believe, would be against WP:BITE and User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided to take more time to read up on Jimbo Wales, and his statement of principles after seeing this. I found that I had made some common mistakes as a newcomer, and spent more time reading, studying about Wikipedia. However, the "attacks" continued - despite my attempts to resolve things. What confused me most was how does an editor add materials, and sources without someone saying that they are "reverting?" Isn't the fact that a editor can add materials after another and then after they push the save button a Wiki-revert? ''I mean, when I add materials, I do so to add materials - not to "war" with anyone. Yet, any time, a single time, I add something on a page I was working on, with my name as the last editor, was saved - it is automatically a revert. How is that a bad thing? How can anyone avoid being accused of "revert wars" when they are honestly editing on Wikipedia?''

Like as listed just below, my honest edits since I joined Wikipedia in December were immediately attacked as hostile. I just got here, and the personal attacks started right away with threats and accusations of "reverts" as if that was my goal from day one! It was not.I did not even know what the term meant.

My first edit as a Wikipedian was on the Astrology Page, my expertise as a professional astrologer, scholar, and writer. Right after I added materials, and performed an edit on 13 December 2005, it seemed to rub BorgQueen the wrong way. This was the start. I apologized later to BorgQueen, but he/she took it the wrong way, and to this day (even though I've had no contact or messages from BorgQueen) they seem to continue to be resenting me. I meant nothing against BorgQueen, or Chris Brennan, or any others. I had just arrived, and made mistakes, but I was not - repeat - not "revert warring" - I had no clue when I joined what that was.

Theodore7 denies this, saying his words and comments have been taken out of context, pasted with his comments alone, and the two-way conversation is made one-way, without the initial comments of those involved also posted. He claims that this is unfair - and that by taking his words out of context is an attempt to further what he says are false accusations made against him by those who signed his Request for Comments and brought about an arbitration case against him.

Theodore states that he has been the subject of hostile personal attacks by Wikipedia editors, and gives evidence from one who also signed his RFC, here:

Dear Alexander007, please refrain from using the word "f___" on Wikipedia. If you are to use Talk Pages, and edit summaries, use words that are not profane. Thanks.Theo 08:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuck is all over Wikipedia. See Fuck and Fuck You, Motherfucker. Alexander 007 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you find other words in the English language to use Alexander, or suggest you discover a more appropriate place for your profanity. Not here. The above is not suited for Wikipedia, nor its community Alexander. Please refrain from expressing your anger, hostility, and yes, your profanity in Wikipedia, as students, and children use this resource. See hostility, frustration, anger, and therapy for more.Theo 08:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7 gives more evidence of personal attacks against him as a Wikipedia editor here:


 * Alexander has the fucking right to use the word "fuck", as long as he's not making personal attacks. We don't give a fuck if children reads the content, since we don't believe in any fucking censorship. Furthermore, there is no censorship on Wiki for this word. Fuck everything that is not Liberal. --Candide, or Optimism 10:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7 gives more evidence of personal attacks against him as a Wikipedia editor again, here -


 * I just checked your profile and saw that you believe in that fucking shit called astrology. Mwahaha! That's fucking hysterical! --Candide, or Optimism 10:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Nudist colony and Dutch beer for even more. Alexander 007 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur; Wikipedia is not censored. What's so "bad" about Dutch beer, though? &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh :) . That sentence was in response to Theodore's list of articles to see . I added two more. In no way was I deprecating Dutch beer, which would be blasphemy. Alexander 007 12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. grins &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks against Theodore7. He gives evidence of the most recent attack again here -


 * Ha ha. If you leave, you will be doing us all a favor and sparing us your astrological crap :) I hope few Wikipedians will be suckered by your sob-story. You may be a good person (which I doubt), but you sure ain't a good Wikipedian. And it's true: I don't know you. I didn't know Latinus either, but I guessed he was a returning user, not a newcomer. And I was right. I believe you are lying, and I do not care whether you care or not, I am more concerned with making my suspicion clear. If I'm wrong, I don't really care, since you are not a valid contributor. Alexander 007 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just gave myself a pat on the back by the way. Alexander 007 08:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fucking idiot motherfuckers always getting on my nerves. You're all so fucking stupid. It's pathetic. I don't know why I bother with Wikipedia, the free pile of SHIT. Fuck all of you. Nobody takes this fucking piece of crap as a reliable source. Kids can't even use it for school reports. Alexander 007 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (Actually posted by Theodore7)

'''Note - The comments below are all Theodore7's taken out of context, and without the comments of those also engaged. To gain a complete account of the context of these "comments" of Theodore's - please post the entire two-way conversation if use is to be made to cite the comments by Theodore's as "threats. including the comments and statements of Chris Brennan will give a clear view of the context in which the comments took place."'''

I do not consider this a personal attack, but good, strong advice from a professional astrologer. Chris Brennan says he is 21 years old, and started studying astrology at age 16. He claims he is a professional astrologer. He is not. I am in my mid-40s, I teach students of astrology, I am a professional, consulting astrologer, and know the difference between a professional, consulting astrologer and a student. It takes a minimum of 10-12 years to become a professional astrologer. He states that he has become one from his first study at 16 years old and now is one five years later at age 21. His claim to being a professional astrologer is not true. I stand by my statement to him as a professional astrologer with decades of experience and knowledge. Astrology, like other sciences, has a long history, and also one with charletans, and students "claiming" to be "professional astrologers." Chris Brennan is a student, he clearly says this himself, but first states that he is a professional astrologer. He is not. He may resent this, but it does not make his claim to be a professional any closer to the truth.

'''Note: The same applies to comments of Theodore's to Bunchofgrapes. In order to understand the comment as a "cynical snob" made to Bunchofgrapes it is needed to see what comments from Bunchofgrapes that Theodore7 was responding to? Again, if evidence is to be used against Theodore then include the comments in the context which they were posted by both parties.'''

Answer: It would not be "odd" when seen in full context rather than these two words, taken out of context, and posted here as a "personal attack." Where is the full series of comments from both sides?Theo 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Note: The same applies here. Where are the comments directed to Theodore7 - in context - by R.Koot?'''

Answer: I did not call Ruud a racist. It was "implied" by another user that it could be read that way. I agreed. And I apologized. The comment of "get rude on talk page when he realises he can't win on arguements" is clearly subjective, and wrong. This is common. Make a statement based on what you don't know, and then state it as truth as if you know Theodore7 well enough to say what he is like when he can't win on arguments. Subjective. I stated facts, acknoledged as correct by Ruud. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It deals also with facts. However, it was cute of whoever posted this to leave my apology out nonetheless.

'''Note: Same applies here. Where are Borghunter's comments to Theodore7 in context?'''

Answer: Yes, this was my comment. I apologized to BorgHunter, and he will comfirm that I did. I have to say that here, I was wrong, and although I believe that BorgHunter made mistakes with me too, I find it curious that whoever posted this decided to leave out my apology to BorgHunter. He was the only one who at least - from time to time -given me some helpful tips. I like him and think he is a great asset to Wikipedia. I thought he was complaining about me without first asking me questions. Even so, I apologized to BorgHunter, and meant it. I will apologize again as well.

'''Note: Again, the same theme. Where are PL's comments to Theodore7 on the Nostradamus Talk Page. Include them please.'''

Answer: This claim is laughable, considering a review of the Nostradamus Talk Page. PL's comments - if anything - apply the bullying method quite well. The problem with me was that I also am a Nostradamus scholar, and his reference to Jews as Pigs is not suitable in the Nostradamus introduction. See Nostradamus Talk Page.

Statements added by Theordore7 to Bunchofgrape's evidence section
Note from Bunchofgrapes: The following was added by Theodore7 to my evidence section. It's attribution is cloudy since it contains some original statements by Theodore and some copy-pasted material from various talk pages.&mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7 denies revert warring or edit warring & Presents Evidence of Mocking Him as He tries to learn more about Wikipedia
Theodore7 denies that he has purposely engaged in revert warring, and refers to the comments & actions of Bunchofgrapes as a English Wikipedia administrator as biased toward him. He states that Bunchofgrapes, rather than help him as a new Wikipedian; that he has done the opposite by alienating Theodore7 with the help of others; while mocking Theodore7's attempts to learn more about Wikipedia and its founder, Jimbo Wales. Here he says Bunchofgrapes uses his position as a Wikipedia administrator to publically mock Theodore7, and Wiikipedia founder Jimbo Wales.

Theodore7 presents evidence of this here:

Bunchofgrapes, I respectfully ask you to please stop your instant reverts on my edits. If you have a problem with any of my edits, then do so from knowledge, but explaining what is wrong about the sourced materials, and edits, rather than making blind statements designed to allow you to revert for no reason. And, again, please cite your sources. You seem to not be able to cite anything that would back up your instant reverts, and accusatory tone telling others that they are reverting, when you have made several instant reverts with no explaination on the edit, or added source. Please cease this and cite your sources, edit the materials according to Jimbo Wales' NPOV, and make sure your sources are verifiable before your reverts. Thanks.Theo 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jimbo Wales' NPOV? Surely Jimbo, like the rest of us, has his own POV? NPOV is not "owned" it is a goal, a desired perspective of articles. Perhaps Theo is so fond of tossing Jimbo's name around that he is now using it in nonsensical fashion, simply because he thinks doing so will impress and awe us, much as he seems to expect his "expertise" to awe and impress. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Jimbo Wales Theodore7 Jimbo Wales has Jimbo Wales come Jimbo Wales to Jimbo Wales believe Jimbo Wales the Jimbo Wales whole Jimbo Wales world Jimbo Wales are Jimbo Wales as Jimbo Wales easy Jimbo Wales to Jimbo Wales deceive Jimbo Wales as Jimbo Wales any Jimbo Wales astrology Jimbo Wales clients Jimbo Wales he Jimbo Wales has. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * roflmao, that was great. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7 also lists this comment from another Wikipedia editor as evidence of Bunchofgrapes constant reverts on Wiki-articles that are on-going. Theodore7 cites this example to explain a possible reason behind Bunchofgrapes "jumping the gun" to complain that articles are poorly written, or sloppy; when Wikipedia editors are in the middle of cleaning, and organizing Wiki-topics:

I think that was a pretty rude thing to say considering I wasn't even the one who made the page. I thought a nice link to the page that I restored would be nice because I thought cleaning up the page and giving it a nice place in Wikipedia was the thing to do. Whether "half-baked" or not, something someone else worked hard on doing does not deserve to be just left out, especially by someone as trustworthy as a Wikipedia Administrator. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about; its just a bunch of amateurs building upon the work of another amateur. In the future, don't go shunning the bad pages, rather fix them up like a true administrator should. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by JP06035 (talk &bull; [[


 * Wikipedia "glitches" cause 3RRs


 * 17:38, December 20, 2005 "it did not go through the first time." This was for a simultaneous 3RR on Nostradamus and Astrology. Theodore 7 shortly after changed the talk-page header for this discussion to "WIKI 3RR Newbie Violators, Glitches, & Wiki Snitches."
 * 01:00, January 11, 2006 "One edit turns into three when the save page button [is] activated". As I point out, this was for a 3RR that took place over 19 hours.


 * Does not revert war


 * 07:18, January 22, 2006: "As for reverting back to this version, well, I do make changes step-by-step, and in concert with sources that I cite."
 * 05:40, February 1, 2006: "I cannot, and have not "thrown" away anyone's work. I write, edit, and continue to source. I would suggest you re-read Jimbo Wales for more on what Wikipedia is about."

Dzonatas' Evidence on Ruud's Bad Wikipedi Behavior
I must say that I'm thouroughly confused by Dzonatas' evidence. What does Jimbo have to do with all of this? —Ruud 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What his evidence shows Ruud, is that you have repeatedly violated the Three Revert Rule, and have engaged in revert warring. See your own edits of al-Khwarizmi for the proof of this. You have a bad habit of accusing others (falsely) of the things you are doing yourself. There is no confusion. And, to answer your question: "What does Jimbo have to do with all of this?" please read Jimbo Wales - you could learn a lot from taking his principles and guidelines to heart and perhaps, go from revert warring yourself to acting in good faith and being a good Wikipedian.Theo 09:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Frustrating? To Whom? Some have constantly Attacked Theodore7 Since He First Joined Wikipedia. That is not acting in Good Faith
It's sort of frustrating; we've gone through all this, and the best Theodore7 can come up with is throwing stones at others. What relevance does R.Koot's actions have on what Theo's done? If he can't admit his guilt in any part of this, how is he ever going to be a good editor?--Prosfilaes 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Throwing stones? I just got here to Wikipedia. I am still new here, and I've admitted to making mistakes, and have also apologized where it was applicable, and even when it was not needed. But, I didn't see my apologises pasted one single time. Not once. But, boy, I do see the accusors doing all they can to ruin Wikipedia. I'm getting emails, and messages from Wikipedians who are very worried about people who accuse as if they own the right to say anything, and accuse anyone of anything without cause. So, they make up the cause. Why? Where's the guilt? Why should a person have to admit to something they did not do - on purpose, or intentionally? You don't know me at all. But, - if a person is to be accused of anything by others - it is nice to see BOTH sides of the comments. As a journalist, I have never reported a story without talking to all sides. This is standard practice because it is honest and allows a full view of what a person is being accused of. Remember, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Perhaps, some don't like the fact that their own comments, and actions in this case - as brought by them - now includes their own violations of good faith, personal attacks, and not biting newcomers, and Three Revert Rule, and Revert Warring - that they falsely accuse me of doing and which they have actually partaken. Admitting guilt? To what? I just got here, and to assume that I have to admit guilt to things I have not done is akin to fascism. I suggest you look at the evidence on BOTH sides, and to also read the comments of all - rather than the one-way flow that some would prefer to hide their own complicity. R. Koot has egregiously violated the Three Revert Rule - without sanction - yet, he accuses others of the the "revert warring" that he is and has been taking a part. So, yes, don't throw stones at glass houses - that is the lesson. By the way - I've been editing and writign news reports for years, and trained journalists. Please don't assume you think that I cannot edit. I am experienced, and was not born yesterday.Theo 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes; though I must say at this point I find it more frustrating that after 1045 Wikipedia edits, Theodore7 still can't make edits to a page like this without barging through everybody's sections. Not to mention the wild spree of context-free copy/pastes from talk pages he's been doing here and elsewhere. Frustrating. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Frustrating Bunchofgrapes? Yes. Now, perhaps, you know how it feels since you did not take the time to do your job as a Wikipedia English administrator to monitor R.Koot's multiple violations of the Three Revert Rule - while harassing a newcomer to Wikipedia, and joining others in falsely accusing him of the same thing. So, my so-called "wild spree" of copy-pastes show the evidence of the truth. Is that frustrating to you? Perhaps, but then again, it might do you good to stick to doing your job - honestly - without joining in witch-hunts against experienced journalists. I can defend myself, and know when people are falsely accused of things they did not do. I am being forced to defend myself against this and you find this frustrating? An apology would do you better rather than this superiority that you are right about slamming a newcomer's head into the ground and threatening him, personally attacking him, and accusing him of revert warring when the person who brought this case to ArbCom - violates the 3RR nearly everyday - while you watched, and did nothing.Theo 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we suppose to dispute the facts about the articles. There is quite a mess to clean up on their talk pages to show the fact that we want to dispute the facts of the articles and not of wikipedians. &mdash;  Dz on at as  21:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But, it appears that those who've accused me of things they are doing have decided to leave out their own comments, and actions implicating their true actions against me. I would be all for actually being a good Wikipedian, but it is not easy with some who don't obey the Wikipedia rules, and principles themselves. I thought all Wikipedians have to respect, and follow the princples.Theo 08:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)