Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by BorgHunter[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Firstly, Theodore7 engages in revert wars, sometimes using misleading edit summaries to do so. As can be shown, he has 95 edits to Nostradamus, 78 to astrology, and 26 to astronomy. This suggests ownership of these articles, which he defends by saying he is being bold. The following information is copied from his request for comment.

Reverts of the astrology article by Theo since he joined on December 13, 2005.

Reverts of the Nostradamus article by Theo since December 13, 2005.

Reverts of the Astronomy article by Theo since December 26, 2005.

Reverts of the Astrology and astronomy article by Theo since January 7, 2006.

Reverts of the Algorithm article

Second Assertion: Personal Attacks[edit]

Theodore7 has also engaged in making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors. The following is copied from his request for comment.

Those directed at Chris Brennan

  • "I also suggest that if you are to show your astrological knowledge, that you do so with a view not solely based on your "opinion" which seems to cover a lack of knowledge on the subject."[2]
  • "You know, it would be mature of you to engage in serious discussion, rather than this pithy stuff you are chucking out, ok? Get real and stop wasting time here." "I don't have the time for student snobbery." "At 21, you haven't gained the knowledge nor experience to be so absolute in your astrology. Suggest you go back to the basics. "[3]
  • "As for Ptolemy, suggest that as a 21-year-old student of astrology that you continue your studies since you continue to write, and act out childishly, and not as a professional astrologer, or historian, or scholar of astrology."[4]
  • "Are you a serious student?" "Suggest you gain more years of practical astrological practice under your belt before writing on the subject seriously." "At your age, how can you even be qualified to state that there is a "misreading of Ptolemy?" You are not an astrologer yet - but a student of astrology." "Moreover Chris, you seem to be picking gnat sh__ out of pepper here and you've got more to learn - MUCH MORE. I suggest you do that rather first before making changes on this subject. You are too young yet to make such absolute statements - particularly on astrology." "I suggest you re-read Ptolemy and stop wasting my valuable time with your long statements based on your lack of knowledge." "You express a lack of serious astrological knowledge and should know better." "But, if I catch you reading one chart as as "professional" Chris, when you clearly are not yet a professional astorloger - I will report you." "This statement proves that you will not become a professional astrologer."[5]

Negative personal attacks directed at Bunchofgrapes

  • Theo makes an odd reference to him as a "cynical snob" [6]

Negative personal attacks directed at R.Koot

  • Calls him a "20-year-old Know-it-All" and then threatens him "Stop playing games, this is your last warning. Read Wikipedia policy. Try me one more time, and you will see."[7] [8]
  • Get rude on the talk page of algorithm when he realises he can't win on arguments. Accuses R.Koot of being a racist [9].

Negative personal attacks directed at BorgHunter

  • Talks down to BorgHunter "I am an experienced journalist, and a scholar and I am NOT 17-years-old. I've been a professional writer, and astrologer longer than you have been alive on this good Earth. Ok?" "You jump to conclusions rather fast for a 17-year-old - which I am not - while not accounting for either mistakes, or mis-understandings, and rather than asking first; you have a VERY bad habit of not only jumping to conclusions, but of making accusations that are in error." "So, the very next time you run to an editor like running to Mom, "complaining" about what "somebody" did - try taking a step back and asking what happened FIRST before playing teenage Columbo, ok?" [10]

Misrepresentation of and Negative personal attack directed at PL

  • At one point Theo attempted to bully PL with false suggestions of anti-semitism because of a typical revert war on the Nostradamus page. Theo was making this assertion to an admin named User:Tom_harrison, but Tom appears to have seen this as a particularly underhanded misrepresentation and he posted it on PL's talk page in order to bring it to his attention.[11]

Third assertion[edit]

Theodore7 has endeavored to disrupt Wikipedia by pasting a profanity-laced inflammatory remark by User:Alexander 007 (posted on his own talk page here) into the Workshop page of this RfAr. [12] This is in addition to other comments pasted to, among other places, the administrators' noticeboard and Jimbo Wales's talk page. [13] [14]

Evidence presented by Bunchofgrapes[edit]

Theodore7 engages in revert warring[edit]

3RR Blocks
He has been blocked four times for clear 3RR violations, and once more for edit warring on several articles. Block log
3RR Warning
The day before hist first 3RR block, User:BorgHunter warned him politely that he was in violation of 3RR on Nostradamus. Theodore7's response to the warning was typically accusatory.
Example of revert-warring style
  • 05:35, February 1, 2006: Theodore7 makes this edit to Astronomy. Edit summary "contains npov version on history of astronomy." This is a revert to Theodore7's last version, from Jan 22, here.
  • 05:39, February 1, 2006: I revert back to what, in the case of this page at least, I feel comfortable calling the "consensus" version. In any case it has been relatively stable in the week Theodore7 has been away from Wikipedia before this.
  • 05:43, February 1, 2006: Theo reverts back to his version. Edit summary: "Source added." And, yes, compared to his previous preferred version, he has added one source. It's still an unlabeled revert.
  • 05:46, February 1, 2006: I rv.
  • 05:57, February 1, 2006: Theodore7 reverts again, edit summary "adding sources". He again adds a ==Sources:== section, containing just Astrology: A History, by Dr. Peter Whitfield (2001), to his previous version. (Note that he had already done that in the previous revert: the article now contains two identical ==Sources:== sections, scattered about it in arbitrary places.)
Reversions of Judicial astrology
  1. 04:42, January 10, 2006 (marked minor)
  2. 09:16, January 10, 2006
  3. 09:22, January 10, 2006
  4. 09:29, January 10, 2006
  5. 08:20, January 19, 2006
  6. 08:29, January 19, 2006 (Edit summary asks "Alexander007, please refrain from revert wars" (!))
  7. 09:19, January 19, 2006
  8. 07:45, January 22, 2006
  9. 05:00, February 1, 2006
  10. 05:14, February 1, 2006
Reversion of Science
  1. 02:34, January 8, 2006
  2. 04:10, January 8, 2006
  3. 05:05, January 8, 2006
Reversion of Isaac Newton
  1. 19:33, December 16, 2005 (No edit summary, marked minor)
  2. 08:53, December 30, 2005 (Edit summary minor edit)
  3. 23:05, January 2, 2006
  4. 23:21, January 2, 2006
  5. 05:36, January 3, 2006
Summation
Gathering this evidence and looking at BorgHunter's has made one thing clear. Theodore7 usually starts off with one big edit or sets of edits on a page. (Often, this edit is reverted or signficantly toned down.) After that, his remaining edits on a page are almost invariably a reversion to his version, sometimes with minor additions.

Theodore7 denies revert warring or edit warring[edit]

Wikipedia "glitches" cause 3RRs
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."

[Refactored] Evidence in Support of Theodore7 presented by User:Dzonatas[edit]

First assertion[edit]

"Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring."

Second assertion[edit]

"Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks."

Evidence provided by User:R.Koot[edit]

Counter-evidence against User:Theodore7[edit]

I have made 20 reverts to the al-Khwarizmi article in 24 hours.
While I have no doubt that I have made 20 or more edits to this article in a single day, as I'm hoping to make this article into a featured artcile some day, few of them were reverts of Theo's POV-pushing. I can say with confidence that I never violated 3RR.

Counter-evidence against User:Dzonatas/User:Jhballard[edit]

It should be noted that Dzonatas and I have had a long running dispute related to the computer science article, which I believed was settled a few weeks ago with the assistance of a mediator. I do not believe this evidence agianst me is very relevant to this case and I would prefer that Dzonatas retracted his statement, and starts a request for comments against me, if he feels I have mistreated him. As I feel Dzonatas' evidence is extemely subjective (e.g. with most interpretations it would be incorrect) and is only an attempt to discredit me, I have chosen to provide counter-evidence, at the advise of one of the arbcom members.

I removed an improvement on Template:WikiProject Computer science and made a personal attack against Dzonatas
The first is event in this conflict was the introduction of a grammatical error in Template:WikiProject Computer science [15] with the agressive edit summary ... If you want to revert it just because "Dzonatas" edited it... well... hmmm... phooey on you!. I reverted this change [16] stating grammar as the reason in my edit summary. Dzonatas re-introduced the grammatical error [17] with the edit summary rvv, User:R.Koot's edit summary doesn't follow the proposed decision to "properly justify edits" as in his ArbCom case; no reason was even stated for the previous revert. This edit summary contains three factual errors. 1) my edit clearly was not vandalism, 2) I did provide an edit summary/gave a reason to revert, 3) There was never an ArbCom case aginst me which stated that I should properly justify my edits (which, by the way, I always do). I reverted the error again [18] stating my confusion about Dzonatas' previous edit summary in my edit summary and explaining that 'gr' stood for 'grammar', thinking he might not have understood my first edit summary. Within minutes Dzonats provided his evidence in this ArbCom case. I, obviously, suspected bad faith here and Dzonatas confirmed this.
I have stalked Dzonatas on Wikipedia
I have done no such thing and challenge Dzonatas to provide evidence.
Dzonatas was unjustly blocked for 3RR.
He violated 3RR, I did not, therefore he was blocked justly. 3RR report Dzonatas' counter-report William M. Connoley's defense
I unjustly deleted Image:Abstracted_Levels_of_Computer_Science-1.GIF
When this image was uploaded Dzonatas he did not provide any licensing inofmration, after searching the website the image was taken from I could not find any statement that this image was usable under a license compatible with Wikipedia. I therefore, correctly and justly, tagged the image as a pssible unfree image and removed it from the computer science article.
I tried to delete Image:Dzonatas 20051030.3.jpg
At this time Dzonatas' attidute in the computer science definition dispute was extremly unhelpful and I will not deny that this action was not done good faith. However, I did follow the correct procedure, as described at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images here and objectivly all I have done was justly tagging the image with {{nosource}} and {{nolicense}} and informing Dzonatas on his talkpage with {{image copyright}}[19]. All Dzonatas would have to do was tagging the image in question as licnese under GFDL or CC (something, which I prefer not to do on someone else's personal photograph).
I reverted Dzonatas' archiving of Talk:Computer science
As stated in my edit summaries, I did this because the discussion archived by Dzonatas were still active. Because the talk pages were not that long and he only left his post behind, I do not believe he acted in good faith here.
I reverted Dzonatas' edits to Computer science
First of all, I never violated 3RR as Dzonatas is implying. It takes two to tango, therefore it is impossible that I reverted Dzonatas' edits more often than Dzonatas reverted my edits. As can be seen from the archives of the talkpages, Dzonatas' tried to insert his definition of computer science for a period of ten months. He did this against a consensus on the talkpage and his edits were reverted by a number of people. The group who opposed zonatas varied over time, I was only involved the last months.

Statement by User:Theodore7[edit]

This statement was originally placed on the Proposed decision page. [20]

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]

Evidence presented by PradeepArya1109[edit]

I have no statement of my own to make. Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction violations[edit]

The Arbitration Committee enacted a temporary injunction on Theodore7 on 16:47, February 9, 2006 (UTC).

  1. [21] Astronomy 11:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. [22] Astrology 11:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. [23] Judicial astrology 11:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. [24] Nostradamus 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. [25] Validity of astrology 12:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. [26] Al-Khwarizmi 12:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. [27] Astrology 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. [28] Astronomy 12:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. [29] Nostradamus 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. [30] Judicial astrology 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. [31] Validity of astrology 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries[edit]

  1. [32] "reverted with minor edits"
  2. [33] "expanded version is not "vandalism" Chris, please stop lying"
  3. [34] "Please stop starting "revert wars" Chris, and stop lying about "vandalism" or prove it"
  4. [35] "Chris, this is the third topic you have lied about saying "vandalism" please stop lying or prove your assertion"
  5. [36] "Chris Brennan, please stop "reverting" based on lies, or prove your assertions"
  6. [37] "reverted from Chris Brennan's "revert wars""


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence&oldid=431111933"