Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence

message: 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#Reverts. (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. — Dzonatas 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merit of case 

message: 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. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV. R.Koot 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the best. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I'm so nauseated by the debates I'm already in that I haven't enough Dramamine for another. You too, eh? android79 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: See Nudist colony and Dutch beer for even more. Alexander 007 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I see. grins —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: I just gave myself a pat on the back by the way. Alexander 007 08:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments in Defense of Theodore7: Attacks from Wiki-user Ruud & Others on a Wikipedia Newcomer 

message: 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.—Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: roflmao, that was great. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements added by Theordore7 to Bunchofgrape's evidence section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: roflmao, that was great. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodore7 denies revert warring or edit warring & Presents Evidence of Mocking Him as He tries to learn more about Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dzonatas' Evidence on Ruud's Bad Wikipedi Behavior 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frustrating? To Whom? Some have constantly Attacked Theodore7 Since He First Joined Wikipedia. That is not acting in Good Faith