Case Opened on 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
R.Koot (talk · contribs)
Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
BorgHunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:Theodore7 [1]
Announced on the RfC talk page. [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A request for comment has been filed on Theo's behaviour and over 20 user have tried to reason with him, to no avail.

Statement by R.Koot

This case is more of a formality as Theo was indefinitly blocked by User:BorgQueen (although, possibly unintentionally, shortened to 24 hours by User:Bishonen). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Theodore7 for details. —Ruud 17:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notice I have lifted the block altogether and a new one-week block has been imposed by User:Bishonen. --BorgQueen 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, BorgQueen and Bishonen have agreed on a one week block for the vandalism commited on February 1 and I wish the ArbCom to judge if Theo's behaviour warrants a long term/indefinite block (if he commits another act of vandalism after his one week block expires). —Ruud 17:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Theo's behavior is many things, but vandalism it is not. Please see the vandalism page for more info on what vandalism is and is not. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removing improvements made by other people, not because you don't agree with them, but because you are too lazy to properly merge the current version with your prefered version is vandalism IMHO. —Ruud 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bunchofgrapes

Theodore7 edits pages almost exclusively by revert warring, always to support his Astrology-everywhere POV, and almost always with deceptive edit summaries. Pages where he has done this include Astrology, Judicial astrology, Astrolabe, Astronomy, and others. Astronomy provides some vivid recent examples of his 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. OK, it takes two to revert-war. At least mine are labeled :-)
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.)
07:03, February 1, 2006: User:A brisson reverts.

A lot of people have expended a lot of effort reasoning with Theodore7 on various talk pages; I personally have tried to focus my efforts on getting him to edit, not revert. These efforts are met with denials and confusing accusations of POV, or not providing sources, and lately with frequent head-scratching invocations of Jimbo's name.

Statement by Bishonen

I urge arbitrators to take a look at Theo's RfC and its talkpage. It's a sad sight; I have truly never seen such a unanimous RFC. The description of the dispute is devastating, with well-exemplified charges of destructive editing, inveterate POV-pushing, rebarbative manner ("Wow. Just met him and wish I hadn't"), personal attacks, and untruths. 25 users have signed/endorsed this description.

The RfC talkpage gives a convenient window on Theo's talkpage manner, as several people argue with him and he responds with three favorite arguments, well recognizable from his usertalk interactions: 1) You're all part of an organized campaign of newbie-biting, 2) I'm editing boldly because Jimbo Wales said to, 3) That's just your POV. (Theo's mistake that NPOV applies to talkpages as well as articles, and that "you're being POV" is consequently a good reply to any criticism, seems irremoveable.) For my own part I advise him to contact some users with whom he has interacted in a positive way and ask them to comment on the RfC. To this Theo claims he has "made new friends on Wikipedia", and that "anyone truly interested in working with me as a fellow Wikipedian, without the accusations, insults, profanity, ignorance, POV, rudeness, etc., is welcomed always by me." I'm assuming good faith on that, but none of these people are named or heard from. A sad sight. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by BorgHunter

My first contact with Theodore7 was rather ignominious, and I have to say that his behavior since this beginning has improved very little. This beginning was a warning I placed on his talk page informing him that he had violated the three revert rule. In it, I tried very much to be friendly and lenient, as I knew him to be a newbie and I didn't want to scare him off. Specifically, I asked him to make constructive edits and to stop reverting others' changes. His response to this was to inform me that I was making POV edits and I had "more than several" reverts myself. I have kept a loose eye him since this start, and I have to say that his behavior following this is simply more of the same. Specifically, as mentioned in the RfC, I think he is adopting a "Usenet mentality" to editing on Wikipedia, preferring to make shows of force to prove his points rather than calmly discussing the issues. I had great hopes that his RfC would show him this, and teach him how to edit on Wikipedia well. Unfortunately, he seems to have ignored the unanimous opinion of Wikipedia editors shown on his RfC (in which he and only he endorsed his defense). I do not wish to see him banned from Wikipedia, as I believe he has a unique viewpoint and would prove an asset to the project, but if cannot play nice with other editors, he does not belong here. Although the RfC has failed to show him the error of his ways, I do hope that this arbitration case will cause him to rethink his actions some. Although he is without a doubt acting in good faith, he is acting in a disruptive manner and that is what must cease. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 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]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/0)

Accept. Charles Matthews 16:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. SimonP 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. ��the Epopt 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction

1) Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.

Passed 5 to 0 at 16:47, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Proposed principles

Civility/personal attacks

1) (a) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonable calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
(b) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring

2) Edit and revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," in which an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule, are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

3) (a) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Reversions/reasonableness/consensus/edit summary

1) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) has demonstrated a propensity to improperly revert pages and carry out edit wars, especially on the aricles on astronomy, astrology, Nostradamus, astrology and astronomy, algorithm, judicial astrology, science, and Isaac Newton, and has on multiple occasions violated the three-revert rule and been warned and blocked for it. Moreover, Theodore7 has consistently failed to make good-faith attempts to garner community consensus or even to properly justify his edits in the edit summary.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors

2) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) has demonstrated a propensity to make personal attacks on other editors in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Especially concerning is Theodore7's comments that demean and belittle other users' age, education, qualifications for editing, experience and apparently unfounded charges of anti-Semitism and racism on the part of other editors. Because these charges are false and defamatory, the Arbitration Committee takes them even more seriously.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedies/enforcement

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Six-month ban from editing content on astrology, astronomy, and related subjects

1) (a) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) is banned from editing or otherwise modifying articles regarding astrology, astronomy, and all related subjects for the period of six months. "All related subjects" shall be interpreted as broadly as possible and shall include all subcategories and immediate parent categories of Category:Astrology and Category:Astronomy, as well as the categories themselves. This includes adding or reorganizing astrological content in topics not generally perceived as astrological or astronomical, such as the algorithm article. Further, Theodore7 is banned from editing, modifying, or creating any new content regarding the above subjects, including templates and portals. Talk pages are not included in this ban.
(b) Should Theodore7 (talk · contribs) violate the terms of the remedy, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one weeks (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations).
(c) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) may appeal the provision in two months. If this appeal is denied, he may appeal every two months thereafter until the one-year ban period has elapsed.

Passed 9 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One-year personal attack parole

2) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) is placed on a personal attack parole for the period of one year. Should Theodore7 make a comment that could reasonably be interperted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one week (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations).

Passed 9 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Required edit summaries

3) Theodore7 (talk · contribs) is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of six months. Should Theodore7 fail to make an edit summary or make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a maximum period of one week for the first five violations, increasing to a year thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Blocked for one week for violation of temporary injunction on various article. Vsmith 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week for violation of personal attack parole: [3]. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Theodore7 for one week for making legal threats. Please note that, as I point out here, he clearly does know the "no legal threats" policy—he quotes from it. He's very ready for an indefinite block, but for now, I have merely added together the three blocks issued today, see above, for one week each, for quite separate violations, and thus blocked Theodore7 for three weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry, Vsmith's block was old, I thought it was from today. Changed my block of Theodore7 to two weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have blocked Theodore7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) indefinitely for legal threats and protected his user talk page until the issue is resolved. The relevant discussion is on his UT page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue has been resolved and Theo unblocked. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]