In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC).

• ( Theodore7 | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Theodore joined wikipedia about a month ago and started a campaign to rewrite several astrology and astronomy related articles to be more in line with his rather strong pro-astrology bias. Initially I was sympathetic because I also study and practice astrology, but the problem was that his articles had more of an air of fundamentalist personal essays to them instead of a neutral presentation of the subject, and most of all they were largely inaccurate from a factual and historical perspective. Because of these biases and the inherent innacuracies of the long articles that he posts, they are almost always reverted shortly thereafter by those who have been working on them, and then a reversion war inevitably ensues.

The primary issues with Theo is that he does not negotiate changes, and continues to revert to his changes after they have been shown to not meet consenses, to be biased and inaccurate (from historical or other perspectives), even after these biases and inaccuracies have been clearly proven with multiple reliable sources. In addition, Theo attacks those who have reverted his edits, engaging in lying, insults, and personal attacks upon all who approach him. The most striking example is that he has made nearly 40 reverts back to the same astrology article that he wrote, in less than a month. As will be shown, this is by no means an isolated incident, but it is a pattern of behaviour that Theo has been carrying on with for over a month now, and it shows no signs of changing.

Theo also seems to have a knack for talking down to younger wikipedians, as will be shown in the Evidence of Disputed Behaviour section. This is especially disconcerting because his actions usually take the form of personal attacks, taunting, questioning the intelligence level of the other editor and bullying.

Finally, although much evidence of Theo's bahaviour can be gleaned merely from the talk and history pages of various articles, it is sometimes hard to keep track of his history because he has a tendency to blank the specific sections of his talk page which contained disputes and warnings (this has included a "block" message placed on his user:talk page by an admin). The regularity with which he does this indicates that this isn't just a minor cleanup from time to time, especially since he has recieved several warnings not to do this, but rather it appears to be an effort to hide past transgressions against other users and articles on Wikipedia.

Description

To summarize, Theo is engaging in massive revert wars, personal attacks, the creation of overtly biased articles, inacurate claims without verifiability or citing sources, dishonesty and just not being very civil with other Wikipedians who try to work, or negotiate with him.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Theo's revert wars:

So far Theo has been blocked four times for these revert wars, as you can see on his block page.

Reverts of the astrology article by Theo since he joined on December 13, 2005. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Posted as a minor edit [14] Posted as a minor edit [15] Posted as a minor edit [16] Posted as a minor edit [17] [18] [19] Posted as a minor edit [20] Posted as a minor edit [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Posted as a minor edit with comment "corected typo" [29] [30] [31] Posted as a minor edit with comment "corected typo" [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Another rv only a day after this RfC is posted! [39] A second rv only a day after this RfC is posted... [40] A week later.. [41]

Reverts of the Nostradamus article by Theo since December 13, 2005. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] Posted as a minor edit [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

• The Nostradamus article is currently protected due to Theo's revert war.

Reverts of the Astronomy article by Theo since December 26, 2005. [61] [62] Posted as a minor edit [63] Posted as a minor edit [64] [65] [66] [67] Posted as minor edit [68] [69] [70] Another rv only a day after this RfC is posted [71] A week after the RfC [72] [73]

Reverts of the Astrology and astronomy article by Theo since January 7, 2006. [74] [75] [76] [77]

Reverts of the Algorithm article [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

Negative personal attacks upon various editors:

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." [85]

• "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. " [86]

• "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." [87]
• "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." [88]

Negative personal attacks directed at Bunchofgrapes

• Theo makes an odd reference to him as a "cynical snob" [89]

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." [90] [91]
• Get rude on the talk page of algorithm when he realises he can't win on arguments. Accuses R.Koot of being a racist [92].

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?" [93]

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. [94]

Dishonest defense when blocked for 3RR rule twice

• Theo is blocked by Bunchofgrapes for violating the 3RR rule and then claims that he "entered the material only once, and it did not revert back. It was a glitch. I would appreciate it next time if you would ask if something is wrong; rather than assuming I violated the rule" [95] Bunchofgrapes tactfully points out that this isn't very likey and that there has been a pattern of these revert wars [96]
• A few weeks later Theo is blocked again for violating the 3RR rule on 2 separate pages. [97] Theo deletes notice from his talk page upon return. [98] Notice reverted back to talk page by [99] Whereupon Theo claims that it was a technical error that caused him the revert 3 times on 2 separate pages over the span of 19 hours. [100] Bunchofgrapes notices him making this excuse again and points out that its faulty [101]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

• Ignores consensus and acting unilaterally, despite discussion initiated by other editors
  • Consensus
• Repeatedly engages in revert wars and violations of the 3RR rule.
  • WP:EW & WP:3RR
• Posts extremely unbalanced articles which seriously lack neutrality.
  • WP:NPOV
• Pushes unsourced, unverifiable claims on various astrology and science articles.
  • WP:V
• Frequently resorts to negative personal attacks
  • WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

• BorgHunter

• On User talk:Theodore7
  • Initial notice of 3RR violation. [102]
  • Reply, trying to soften things up. [103]
  • Call for a truce on a dispute paragraph. [104]
  • Asking Theo to follow WP:NPOV. [105]
  • Providing a diff, as requested, for Theo's blanking of an article. [106]
  • Asking Theo to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. [107]
  • Rebuttal to points made against other editors. [108]
• On Talk:Nostradamus
  • Trying to find common ground. [109]
  • Notification of a change. [110]
  • Realization that it was getting personal. [111]

• Chris Brennan

• Initial plea to stop with the repeated reverts on the astrology page: [112]
• Much later attempt to be straight with Theo and call for a truce [113]

• R.Koot
  • Left an explanation on Theo's talk page after his changes on the algorithm page had been reverted twice (both reverts were not made by me) [114].
  • After Theo's block for a 3RR expired some discussion took place [115]. He continued reverting though.
• Lumos3
  • Advised to try to find a consensus. Incorporated some of his large edit into the History of Astrology page where it seems to have a place. Created a new page for Judicial astrology where Theodore7’s unusual view of this subject can be developed to consensus with others without affecting the main astrology article. [116]
  • Advised that the article must contain the view of science as well as one sympathetic to astrology. Suggested Wikinfo.com would be a better place to pursue his ideas if he was not interested in working collaboratively. [117], [118]
  • Suggested he make smaller edits which can be argued over. [119]
• Jim62sch
  • Suggested he soften his tone. [ [120]
  • Seconded suggestion by Pradeep Arya. [ [121]
  • Attempted to explain why Al-Khwarizmi's astrological beliefs are irrelevant to his work as a mathematician. [ [122]
• huwr
  • Suggested he find a source for edits to Science, and gave him 24-hours before I would revert his changes. (his changes were reverted anyway) [ [123]
  • Suggested Theo moved the information he added to Science to a seperate article, where it may be more relevant. [ [124]
  • Thanked Theo for his interest in Science, and warned him about revert wars and their consequences. [ [125]
• Squiddy
  • Suggested on Astrology Talk that Theo works from the consensus version of Astrology adding to it piece-by-piece, with discussion, after Astrology was listed on RfC.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. -- Chris Brennan 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. — Ruud 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- huwr 12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. BorgHunter 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. -- BorgQueen 06:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Fredrik | t c 08:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Lumos3 10:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jim62sch 11:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Vsmith 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Pradeep Arya 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) — See Outside View below. reply
7. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Bunchofgrapes 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. David D. (Talk) 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Guettarda 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)see [126] my one contact with Theo. reply
12. I tried to explain NPOV on Nostradamus but was called names, including "racist" of all things. I eventually gave up as the editor was entrenched in edit warring and unwilling to listen, and those who know me know I rarely give up on matters of bias, so this was an extraordinarily impossible case. DreamGuy 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. — Dunc| ☺ 13:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Alexander 007 16:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I was much taken aback at the Un-Wiki-like behavior of Theodore7 when I encountered him in Judicial astrology. He was, to put it mildly, unreasonable, overly agressive, and abusing Wikipedia policy. reply
15. Regardless of the historical facts, he left clearly misleading "corrected typo" edit summaries for his large additions/reversions. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 17:04
16. Fundamentally dishonest. On this talk page he claims that we're in the wrong for concluding dishonesty from clearly misleading edit summaries.-- Prosfilaes 19:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Wow. Just met him and wish I hadn't. Obviously troublesome user. Marskell 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Bubba73 (talk), 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Per all the above. — Nightstallion (?) 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. The above reverts, attacks, and failures to have dialogue and freeze editing to discuss consensus are serious matters, especially given the intensity of the animosity towards all other people who disagree with him. This probably should have gone to Arbcom, and I hate RfC, I am only commenting per a user request. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by Theodore 7 whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Note: to prove that as a newcomer, I tried several times to be civil with Chris Brennan: please refer to his Talk page for record of our discussions since I joined Wikipedia a month ago. It will be noted that I did not fail to try to resolve anything with him - and several times asked for him to work along with me, and to be civil. Rather, he would make accusations that took matters further. I even apologized to him to tone things down - but he did not acknowledge this. Moreover, he inserted himself into the Nostradamus situation with PL, and thus, began his "campaign" for RFC by contacting this user - see PL Talk Page - complementing him, then complaining about me. Rather than embracing a Wiki newcomer - he sought to be hostile. I later found out that it was called "biting newbies." Theo 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Response to the statement of the dispute: I joined Wikipedia a month ago. What I immediately noticed was that some users seem to think that Wikipedia's motto - "be bold" is something that is just a saying, with no impact in reality. I took on this motto as I edited articles related to my own expertise. What I discovered, as a newbie, was that I needed to learn more about Wikipedia's community, but in doing so, also learned that some do not follow this motto - be bold - but take it as an afront when someone does not share their POV. I consider the above an effort to smear, not to help. Moreover, rather than asking, I have run into people here, who signed this page, who appear to be engaged in efforts to "hide" things, and to express their own POV, rather than assuming good faith. In one month, my mistakes, and they were mistakes, have been treated by those here on this page as a "campaign" which is not true. As a Wikipedian editor, I have the same ability to edit as others do. And, when I make mistakes, I admit them. However, a careful reading of the remarks sent to me will clearly reveal that the hostility was not started by me. Read the one-line attack comments, accusations, etc., that were written without assuming good faith; which I assert that I do have. In dealing with some editors & administrators, I found only two who have been extremely helpful to me as a newbie, and made a difference by referring me to ways to improve myself as a Wikipedian. I'm sure I will find more as I progress. Also, I found that one of the admins, who emailed me, guided me to the Wikipedia guidelines on "not biting Wikipedia newbies." This was very helpful, as it explained a lot of what I experienced in less than a month with the pople listed on this page.

Response to the description: I did not know what a "revert war" even meant, much less engaged in it purposely. However, as a new Wikipedian, I seem to have exposed individuals who seem to believe that some Wikipedia subjects, Astrology, Nostradamus, are their personal domain, and that they own the Wiki-page, and who use such attack phrases as "biased articles" "inaccurate claims" with false accusations of not providing "verifiability" and more false accusations as not "citing sources." Anyone who is clearly non-biased, and reads the materials will clearly see otherwise. Moreover, these "claims" are used to promote POV which runs counter to many who complain who either fight over sources they do not agree with as in the Nostradmaus article, or who do not provide sources at all - such as on the Astrology Page. Also, it is not true that I am not being civil with other Wikipedians. Anyone who reads the Talk Pages will see my efforts to be civil, and to work together with others. However, again, after only one month as a Wikipedian, I seemed to have exposed some rather neferious individuals whose own words have shown that they are not being very "civil" or to negotiate when disputes arise. The ones named on this page - including two administrators have made strongly negative assertions, and failed to ask me questions, yet knowing I was new, continued to accuse me of things that I never heard of before I joined Wikipedia. For instance, I asked Bunchograpes for help. He did not respond. Then, when I had technical problems, he blocked me. I emailed him, saying I did, and he responded on my Talk page as if he did not believe me. Well, his tone was so bad, that I didn't feel like I could go to him for help. The same thing happened with Tom Harrison, who was slightly better than Bunchofgrapes in his response to me, but then he inserted himself into the Nostradamus article (reference to Jews as Pigs) with an assumption about what he thought the user meant. He did not ask me what I thought the reference was to. Assumptions. But not asking. If one is to "assume good faith" - it means just that I learned here. But, in my case as a newbie, I don't see the people who signed this page doing that.

Response to "Theo's revert wars": These "reverts" as they are called here - are my edits - something a Wikipedian is allowed to do. Moreover, I did not know what a "revert war" was, but seemed to be a victim of them. The above are my edits, and many of them contain sources that can be cited, unlike the articles that claim to be "reverted." I suggest that those claiming "revert wars" take a look at their own actions. I have not reverted war against anyone, and do not consider an edit to be a revert. However, I will admit to making mistakes, and corrected them as a newcomer who gained more information, and knowledge of Wikipedia. Still, those on this particular page, in my opinion, as a newcomer without a long history here - seem to be engaged in point-of-view pushing, and are very sensitive to any changes made, or encyclopedic information added. This is shown by their immediate comments, and hostile one-liners, that mock sourcing; especially when it runs counter to their own point of view. For instance, rather than use the Talk Page to gain more information, I've noticed that most fail to use it to reach any kind of agreement (with the recent exception of Pradeep on the Algorithm article. He was the first Wikipedian editor among those names on this page who said he would read the sources I cited & we agreed to leave the article as stands until he did) and write rude comments on edit summaries. I've asked that Talk Pages be used, but, all that's happened on them in my single month as a Wikipedian has been hostile comments, false accusations, rudeness, and POV that is stated as "consenus." I have not seen any consensus, but rather, the opposite. Lumos3, for example, will instantly revert, and has done so repeatedly, but will rarely use a Talk Page. PL, uses the Talk Page to accuse, and is very hostile, and considers the Nostradamus Page as his personal realm; scaring off others who have wanted to add their edits. Bunchofgrapes, as an administrator, seems to enjoy being cynical with one-liner comments, and avoids helping newcomers adjust. Chris Brennan says he wants to get along, but does not respond at all to emails, requests, and goes about complaining about me to others; yet, he will not cite sources on the Astrology Page. Sources that are cited, he will call "out-of-date, but I doubt he has read them; and considering he doesn't cite sources at all to reference an article; it is hard to take him seriously as the astrologer he says he is. In one month of being here, it sure seems that those here I've encountered have taken the subjects they are attached to as their personal property. This makes it very hard to "be bold" as a Wikipedian and add one's expertise, and knowledge to encyclopedic subjects.

Responses to "Negative personal attacks upon various editors:"

Chris Brennan, first quote: I meant it. He claims to be a professional astrologer and is not. He is a student of astrology. This is NOT the same thing. Second quote: Again, I meant it. There is no crime for stating what you believe. He was being snobby, and continued to claim he is a professional astrologer. Third quote: Yes, again, I mean these words. I am a professional astrologer, and teacher in my 40s. I do not consider Chris to be a professional, and he has shown that he lacks the knowledge and experience of a professional astrologer. I wrote him lengthy answers on Talk Pages, and even suggested we work together. However, he continued to take my professional views as personal attacks on him. He is too young to state that he is a professional astrologer, and in his writings on the subject has shown a lack of this, in my perspective. Astrology has enough people claiming to have many years of experience, but who are students, and NOT professional astrologers. Yet, he continues to say that he is one. In reporting him, I meant to professional astrologers, since there are associations of astrologers in America.

R. Koot: Did not accuse him of being a racist. Find the word where I call him one. However, I was reminded that my statement could be read that way. I agreed, even if it was not meant to call him one, and apologized. I suggested that he might have a problem with Hindus discovering algebra, since he was so hostile in his istant reverts, and on the Talk Page - mind you - without provocation. I also cited sources, which he chose to ignore.

PL: Suggest you read PL's material on Nostradamus associating Jews with the spanish word for pigs. I considered this inappropriate for the subject matter, and stated so. As for "bullying" - suggest you review the archived talk page with PL's statements for a history of this very difficult, and very biased Nostradamus editor.

Response to the dishonest defense when blocked for 3RR rule twice: It was a glitch. I continued to see a "Wikipedia is having technical problems" page come up on the screen when the Save button was pushed. I reported this more than once - and received negative answers back; yet, for some reason, Bunchofgrapes just ignored it, and says it was a "claim." Yet, it continued to happen. I then decided to check my own sytem, since I got little support from Bunchofgrapes asking why I was seeing this. I sent him an email, but he did not address the technical issue and treated it as if I was lying. I didn't appreciate this, and then was led to the Wikipedia page on "biting newcomers" - it was a revelation on my experiences with some of the people here on this page for 30 days. It was a great help, since I assume that other newbies are experiencing much of the same thing.

Response to "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"

BorgHunter: Again, this is not true. I have - 1) used Talk Pages, and requested that others use them to work out differences; 2) Asked questions; 3) responded in kind to questions; 4) have agreed on issues with others; 5) learned more about Wikipedia's guidelines; 6) cited sources; 7) come to agreement; 8) asked for "balance" and to "trust the reader; 9) apologized when things got heated; 10) requested to find common ground, and to cite sources on articles not sourced, but that are reverted back away from sourced articles.

Comment on the "Users certifying the basis of the dispute": The above individuals, in my view, and on Talk Pages, or on edit summaries - with the exception of BorgHunter - have not once responded to my requests, or an apology, but have shown immediate hostility to me, as a new Wikipedian.

Other users who endorse this summary: After only a month? Most of the above names - excepting Pradeep) - just made initial, and hostile comments to me as a new user almost from the very start. I suggest, that perhaps, they reconsider their own attachment to their POV on the topics at hand, and realize that the motto "be bold" does not entitle them to immediately attacking a new editor by hurling accusations; one-liner insults, at Wikipedia newbies. It did not make me feel welcomed a bit. Moreover, after researching a bit, I have found that the practice of "biting newcomers" is quite common - especially from some, like the names above, who, despite having sourced material cited, and named, clearly avoid them, while enspousing ever more POV - and personal attacks - rather than conducting themselves in a manner that assume good faith. The Talk Pages reveal this, not only my mistakes, which I surely made, yes, but also, when noted, my apologies. If a review of the comments including the names of those above are read; one will see that what I have responded to is true, and that indeed, those above, are, and have been biting a new Wikipedia editor, and engaging in "revert wars" while also avoiding answers to questions, sourcing, and making a new user feel welcome. I admit my mistakes, but I deny making them on purpose, to "war" or anything else. I just seem to have stumbled onto some editors here who consider Wikipedia their own personal kingdom - and they seem to not like newcomers.

Response to applicable policies: For only being here one month, it sure seems as if I am guilty of everything - doesn't it? I found I made some mistakes common to newcomers, but boy, does it feel lonely considering the request for comments from some who I believe treat their edits beyond sacred. Some, like Peter Lemesurier (PL) and Chris Brennan stake their claim on the Nostradamus and Astrology articles as if they owned the Wiki-Pages. I continue to cite sources, I use the Talk Pages, and I edit using Wikipedia's motto to "be bold." I respond to comments in a manner addressing edits, or sources, on the direct subject. I have yet to see any "consensus" - though the word is used often, I have not found it on the subjects I have edited, or took part in editing. For instance, my first visit to the Nostradamus Page was met with immediate hostility by PL, who, if anyone would care to check, has his own history of extremely responses to others who would even ask him a question. In fact, Peter Lemesurier asks you questions, and the proceeds to answer them for you in the same sentences! See for yourself in the archived Nostradamus Talk Page for December 2005. I mean, how can you work with a person like this? Theo 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Response to Outside opinion by Bishonen: Yes, I agree. However, if one goes to the Talk Pages and reads the two-way conversation that is taking place, perhaps this statement by you can be also applied to those who endorse this summary below. As for milking "don't bite the newbies" -that is your POV - suggest you walk a mile in the newbie shoes as Jimbo Wales has done before making such a statement. I agree that Wikipedia is NOT a battleground - again - read the Talk Pages, and find accusatory tones not signed by Theo. As for "revert Warring" - I suggest that a newbie should not be denied "good faith" and that your assertion that I am pushing my view of astrology as your POV. Does the term "be bold" as stated by Jimbo Wales sound like a weak statement to you? It is Wikipedia's motto. Finally, as for "righteous" - again, this is your POV, and is an assumption. I will continue to "be bold" and to follow Wikipedia's stated guidelines and polices, as I see this as the best way to expose what some of those who signed the above are conducting. As I consider some fairer set of eyes are also watching - and reading - and perhaps will have walked in the shoes of a Wikipedia newbie.

Response to Outside opinion by OnceBitten: Agreed. I've learned a lot in a month; despite the attacks, as if I am intentionally out to be malevolent - which is not what I am about whatsoever. What I find disturbing is that what OnceBitten said about falling into the trap that people don't remind themselves that there is a person behind that screen name is exactly what I believe has happened to me. As for guidance, I have been receiving some from balanced, and experienced Wikipedia administrators, and editors who've advised me well. I am taking their advice, and using it to not only improve my edits, but to strengthen them. I am a veteran journalist, and not new to editing & writing, as some would assume. I also am well-versed in documentation, sourcing, and citing them in a verifiable manner - and will continue to do so in my edits. Theo 08:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Theo 12:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

My dispute with Theo has been over the fact wheter al-Khwarizmi should be refered to as a mathematician or an astrologer in the algorithm article. Theo's view is

Listen, my edit is sourced. Ok. So please, do not revert unless you have a source that runs counter to him being an astrologer. Saying he was a "mathematician" is redundant. All astrologers - particular the classical astrologers such as Al-Khwarizmi were mathematicians. Cite a sources that say he was not. Thanks.Theo 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a highly non-mainstream POV, if not factually incorrect and therefore deserves no mention in articles such as algorithm, astrolabe and Poor Richard's Almanac. This might at most be appropriate in articles on the history of mathematics, astronomy and astrology, if properly sourced.

1. R.Koot 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- huwr 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Accurate assessment. Pradeep Arya ( Talk | Contrib) 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The statements given in the dispute are factually correct. Theodore7 does have a strong pro-astrology POV. Theodore7 has engaged in revert wars on several articles. Sadly, Theodore7 has also issued some personal attacks.

However, Theodore7 doesn't strike me as a troll for the sake of trolling. Rather, Theodore7 strikes me as somebody with a strong POV who doesn't quite understand how the Wikipedia editing process works yet. True, he is a difficult editor to work with, but I do not believe he is incorrigible.

When I asked him to apologize to R.Koot for the baseless accusations of racism [127] he did so [128].

When I explained to him that peer review and consensus are important in the editing process [129] he agreed not to edit Algorithm until his source could be reviewed [130].

To see things through Theodore7's eyes, he's just trying to improve Wikipedia in the best way he knows how. He meets resistance from editors who basically say, "What you're saying is wrong, stop editing the page." He tries to provide sources, but they are dismissed out of hand; possibly for not being readily available. I can imagine this might get frustrating after awhile, especially after encountering it on several articles.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not justifying violations of the 3RR. I'm not justifying violations of WP:CIVIL. I'm just saying that he needs help with the Wikipedia editing process. (I'm pretty sure he dislikes fighting everyone as much as everyone dislikes fighting him.) He may think that the way to win the argument is by arguing forcefully. That sometimes works in the newsgroups. On Wikipedia, the way you win the argument is by convincing your opponent to write the version you want for you. I believe he will learn this, given time and some gentle encouragement.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Pradeep Arya ( Talk | Contrib) 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (Retracted. Pradeep Arya ( Talk | Contrib) 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) reply
2. — BorgHunter ( talk) 13:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Agree he is not a "troll" — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. He got better at providing sources. (retracted 14:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)) Algae 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. i agree he is moving in the right direction. I hope this RfC will help him see his good and bad points and help him to become a more productive editor. At present much time is wasted in arguments as he learns what is acceptable in the community. David D. (Talk) 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. One hopes this process will help him better understand the need to reach a consensus. Jim62sch 18:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Given the statement on his user page I must admit that I'm not as confident as Pradeep on Theo contributing from a neutral point of view. — Ruud 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. -- huwr 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. I think many of the "personal attacks" are relatively minor and were returned in kind by the ones he was attacking. Other than that, agree. Mangojuice 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above reflects directly Theo's behaviour in connection with the Nostradamus page as well. He constantly destroys the painstaking work of others with his repeated blind reverts based on little beyond personal opinion, and routinely uses highly objectionable language and personal accusations to others on the related Talk pages - to say nothing of repeatedly violating others' copyright in the course of the article (in this case, Leoni pp. 121, 123, 125 and 127, as quoted in bold italics). To my mind he is a prime candidate for banning from the encyclopedia altogether for (to put it at best!) persistent conduct contrary to Wikipedia rules.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. -- PL 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I'm willing to give him another chance, but I see no other solution if he doesn't change his attitude towards Wikipedia and it's editors. — Ruud 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- huwr 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse at least comments on talk pages. Marskell 21:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. I endorse this, except for the copyvio issue, on which I have no opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Not for destroying the[se] front page[s], but I would let him talk however he wants on the talk pages. I say give him another chance. ( -A 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

I accidentally noticed a quarrelsome post from Theo on User talk:Bunchofgrapes and clicked with curiosity on some talkpage contributions at random, finding that this seemed to be the normal tone of Theo's posts. It seems likely that he's not aware of how he comes off to others, and is merely trying to convince them that he's right. Since he regards himself as still a newbie in need of advice, I'll offer some here: Theo, you'd probably find that people responded better to you if you made a conscious effort to speak politely to them. Secondly, after one month and 783 edits, it's time to stop milking the don't bite the newbies policy; I believe you misunderstand WP:BITE, which is not intended as carte blanche for new(ish) users to bite everybody else. Please reflect instead on Wikipedia is not a battleground, a relevant policy both for the accusatory tone you have, probably accidentally, slipped into using, and for your revert warring to push your view of astrology as being a serious science into articles against consensus — no matter how convinced you are of the righteousness of your cause, doing that is not appropriate behavior.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC). reply
2. PL 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. BorgQueen 16:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Pradeep Arya ( Talk | Contrib) 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. David D. (Talk) 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Jim62sch 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Guettarda 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. — BorgHunter ( talk) 19:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) see [131] reply
11. Geogre 21:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) This much is clear. I would advocate mediation. reply
12. — Ruud 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. -- huwr 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. William M. Connolley 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. FeloniousMonk 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Ikkyu2 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

First I don't get the feeling that Theodore7 is going out and starting fights or intentionally being malevolent. I am prone to believe that he's new to the system, has taken the advice to be bold to heart and feels passionately about his topic and in doing so hasn't really understood that other members opinions matter.

He might also fall into the trap that lulls people into not reminding themselves that there really is a person behind those other screen names, and those people having feelings and beliefs as much as he does. There also might be a personality conflict, or possibly he may be of the sort that doesn't communicate through his writing as he may think he does.

So I'm of the opinion that this user is well intentioned, but that he needs guidance, and he needs to understand that the guidance offered is not there to minimize his opinions on matters or negate them. But guidence should be there to help guide him toward writing in an NPOV format

If he has very solid opinions, he needs to document those opinions in a factually based fashion and in a verifiable manner in the article, and can simply voice those opinion that he can not support on the talk page. OnceBitten 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. OnceBitten 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.