Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

whats sock puppeting? Gabrielsimon 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts pretending they are different people. ~~~~ 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

link labelled "1" on the other page, not my work, i was reverting it, and was planning on modifying it, but never got the chance to. Gabrielsimon 14:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Once or even twice, I think the community would disregard. Based on a review of your talk page, you seem to have frequent and repeated run-ins with the Wikipedia community standards. I'm just an editor, but I perceive a clear pattern of disruption. There is a point where credulity becomes stretched at accepting the idea that you 'made an honest mistake', especially after so many transgressions. I am not an admin or spokesman, just a fellow editor sharing my perception of the situation. - Chairboy 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

as for links 4, 5, 6, this was the truth i was putting in, and i even tried to make it sound NPOV, other people just didnt like it. Gabrielsimon 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think those are covered under the 'Original research' element of the rfc, not npov. - Chairboy 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. Gabrielsimon 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

--It is this sort of comment that I find particularly frustrating. You have done much the same thing on the Vampire and Werewolf pages--people, including me, have challenged your sourcing and you make these coy little responses like "check around; you'll see." Do you actually understand what an encyclopedia _is?_ PROVIDE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES if you are asked to back up your assertions. Your edits seem to continually degrade the quality of Wikipedia as a factual reference. If you want to advance your own POV and independent positions, you will find the Internet abounds in resources for that sort of work. Wikipedia is not one of them.--Craigkbryant 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Outside view 1

Moved from the project page:

theres a policey about aboidingthe use ofthe word terrorist that i was trying to go by. Gabrielsimon 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Citing the wikipedia policy you are attempting to follow can sometimes help. I don't know if you did in this case or not, but in the future it could help you. Either way, you can't break one policy, such as NPOV, to follow another. FuelWagon 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The policy Gabriel is referrring to is Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It would take an intentional misreading of that page to conclude that the word "terrorist" is inappropriate in all cases. It's true that use of the term is often disputed, but few would argue that the 9/11 attackers were anything but terrorists. Rhobite 00:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

additional comments

FWIW, Gabrielsimon months back removed the word terrorist from Timothy McVeigh after seeing that someone else who was doing so had posted onto my talk page to complain when I put it back. (GS tracks my talk page, and, when someone else has a conflict with me, he often joins up with that person.) When I took the time to explain to him who exactly McVeigh was and what he had done, GabrielSimon then turned around and got into an edit war with the other person, actually restoring terrorist when the other person took it out (resulting in a near block for 3RR but one of his reverts in the 24 hours was a revert on himself so they tossed that one out). I remember this clearly because this is perhaps the only time GS ever agreed with me on any issue, especially since a number of the disagreements seemed to be doing exactly opposite what I did no matter what it was (for example, he has admitted to reverting a name change to an article not because he disagreed that the new title was better but because he didn;t want me to prevail in a conflict with someone else). I am actually disappointed to hear that he has apparently gone back to revert inclusion of the word terrorist in articles in which it is not really disputed by anyone except those who cannot understand the guideline. DreamGuy 05:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

youll note that , if it took a while, id do agree with you on the missing sun issue, tho i beleive i took to long... if youd allow, id like to try turning over a new leaf as it were, all grudges, justand not, left behind seems ok? Gabrielsimon 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see a new leaf. However, this revert concerns me. There is a discussion on the Talk: Witchcraft that I'm confident you're aware of, having already participated in it. PWhittle has made a good case. You have not answered his points. Why would you make yet another revert with no summary but "rv" and no discussion on the talk page? Friday 01:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

as i have likly said before, tjhe word and idea of witch was not of an origion that is in the american continant , it is a european contiant, and any thoughts to show that it wasnt are misinterpretations and mistranslations. id have left out the mention of the american continents entirely, but i comprimised and inserted " after contact with Europe" instead... Gabrielsimon 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Continued reverting?

I'm not sure why you're continuing to revert so casually. In addition to the questionable Witchcraft revert mentioned above which you have still not IMO coherently explained, you're now reverting here. I'm not saying you've broken the 3RR or anything, and I hope that you don't, but I think you should consider being less aggressive in your reverts. Friday 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

dont you know thatyour jumping the gun?? damn it dude, leave me alone! your starting to annoy me. Gabrielsimon 03:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must protest

Gabriel, this edit pains me greatly. When this RFC was opened, some notes were posted on talk pages of articles where you've had controversial edits, pointing to this RFC. I believe this is accepted as normal and proper. Tonite, you made a few controversial edits to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and you didn't seem to me like you were willing to consider compromise. So, I posted a comment on the talk page pointing people to this RFC in case anyone cared to chime in. You deleted my comment, called it a cheap shot, and said I was a nuisance. I'm afraid I must strongly protest your edit. Friday 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

you using the existance of this RFC to attampt to influcence the out come of discussions os both childish and disrespectfull, if not cowardly. im beginning to think you were the child who went running to any authority figure at any sign of discomfort, urthermore, may i r eiterate, Leave Me Alone. im getting tired of your stalkerlike behaviour. Gabrielsimon 04:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(and yes im sounding annoyed, fact is im getting tired of being followed around and bothered by friday.Gabrielsimon 04:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC))

--Gabriel, I'm sorry you take such objection to Friday's actions. But it seems to me that people decide to contribute to this project in a variety of ways. For instance, I've mostly done copy-editing in the past, and often working as an anonymous user. Other people wish to focus heavily on one or more articles or topics. Still others take an interest in the good functioning of the Wikipedia project itself--this group including administrators and the like. And Friday is participating in this fashion by systematically investigating your edits, wherever they may come. I know you don't accept the objections that a number of people have raised to your editing behavior, but Friday is of the opinion that your work damages Wikipedia, if I may make so bold as to offer a statement on his behalf. I agree with him. That is why this RFC is taking place. That is also why Friday feels it is useful of him to look at your edits in other articles, and point other people to this RFC. This seems entirely appropriate on his part, and I hope he will continue to do so. Gabriel, it is obvious you care very much about the subjects you edit on Wikipedia. I would sincerely ask you to consider the comments people have been leaving on this RFC--along with the total lack of comments in favor of the edits you have been making--and ask whether you are really operating in the spirit of the Wikipedia project.--Craigkbryant 20:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Observations

It seems to me that Gabriel is quite sincere, and simply does not understand how antisocial and disruptive his behavior is in an online community such as this. I don't believe it's an issue of malicious intent, but rather bad behavior. It's a shame, because I do believe he can make a genuinely positive contribution if he can learn how to develop his ideas from a solid foundation of references, and how to arrive at a consensus in a community of diverse backgrounds and points of view. Parker Whittle 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've recently decided that he means well also. However, he's so far demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to change his editing behavior. He continues the very behaviors that lead to this RFC. He seems to believe that as long as he does not violate 3RR, it's OK to made unexplained edits against consensus. Even his multiple bans have not deterred him, so I'm not confident that anything can be done to change his behavior. Friday 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There has been absolutely no change in his behavior despite all the people telling him that it is unacceptable. His recent actions are just as bad as they have always been. We can all sit here and speculate that he supposedly means well, yet his actions show otherwise. DreamGuy 00:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

i removed nothing, i insterted a cmoomnt to xplain somehing.  much like this one

Gabrielsimon 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I said removed from this RfC page when I actually meant removed something from another RfC listing and then placed his own personal comments in the evidence section of this RfC. The fact that it was two violations instead of just one cannot possibly construed as an argument in your favor. DreamGuy 00:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

as for the RFC page, firday misfiled something, so i removed it and told him to refuile it, and hecalls it vandalism... bit of a stretch there, yes? as for the thoer thing, i put an explaination right were one was needed, i thought, and still friday calls it vandalism... Gabrielsimon 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, not a stretch at all. Quite the contrary in fact. You claim the listing was misfiled, but instead of refiling it where you think it should have gone (or even explaining where you think it should have gone) you deleted it completely, not once but multiple times, even from more than one section. Removing the listing is completely inexcusible. Between that and constantly removing tags on the page that listing pointed to, you have made it clear that you do not want the normal process of consensus building to happen. That's worse than vandalism. DreamGuy 03:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

fridays overreactions

in the fllwing link he claims my removing Otherkin from the RFC page is vandalism, well its not, its simply becasue its not an article about philosophy, hence my request is that it be refiled in a better spot. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&curid=449877&diff=19678373&oldid=19678285 Gabrielsimon 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted to demonstrate good faith, you could move it to a correct section instead of deleting it outright. It's now been put in two different sections by two different editors, and you've deleted it twice, asserting that it was wrong but offering no insight as to what might make it right. Friday 00:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

you called it vandalism, which was very annoying, so i chose, the second time to simply change it back, because ITS not vandalism, its making you notice your mistalke, and since its not MY mistake, making you fix it... hichj you still havnt done. what do you know about good faith anyway, you delete a lot of what i do, and then just leave it. Gabrielsimon 00:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to view Wikipedia as some kind of organized fighting between editors where we make each other pay for mistakes. That's not what it's meant to be. We should be helping each other. Perhaps the 5 pillars of Wikipedia will help you see what I mean. Friday 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

i react how i am treated, nothing more. Gabrielsimon 02:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe this will help: I'm sorry I called your edits "vandalism" if that's not how they were intended. Friday 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

i do apologize if i take things personally... but i do peide myself as being soameone whos never and shall never stoop to vandalism. Gabrielsimon 02:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you may not intend to, but what you're doing amounts to vandalism whether you understand that or not. You have been talked to and even sanctioned repeatedly and you still don't get it. You have to learn to back down. As I've said in previous comments addressed to you, some people might agree with what you say, but that doesn't make it automatically appropriate for an encyclopedia. 141.157.190.194 03:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I should sign that properly: Haikupoet 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

vandalism is defined as intentional, insulting and often degrogatory remarks, as far as i know, i have done none of that. Gabrielsimon 03:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What's the next step?

From Gabrielsimon's recent activities on several articles it is clear that he has not taken anything at all from the comments of the (currently) 15 editors endorsing the complaint to none supporting his response. If anything his actions have been even more confrontational. As one of those who certified this complaint, I want to know what the next step in the escalation process is, so we can get the ball rolling. DreamGuy 03:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

its clear to methat you have not read anything that doesnt suit your fancey. kindly be quiet. Gabrielsimon 03:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: Gabrielsimon removed this entire section, erasing his rude reply and my comment and question. Immediately after doing so he wrote the section below claiming he was tired of this and asking that the entire page be deleted. This is undeniable proof that he has learned nothing from this process and that this needs to be escalated to the next level. DreamGuy 05:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

please disregard Dreamguys supposed "evidance"... without even reading it, my guess is already that hes only half read in in some zealous and usual way to attempt to make others mad at me. Gabrielsimon 07:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You've done that quite effectively all by yourself, Gabriel. Haikupoet 18:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the next step, I don't believe we need to worry about that. There is already an RFA in place here. I'm not sure how those go exactly, but I'm sure those involved in it are quite familiar with the process. Friday 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't seem to be going anywhere (from what I can tell at a glance anyway), and only involves one other editor. It also misses many of his most recent actions to try to get around Wikipedia policy, such as erasing evidence from the RFC. DreamGuy 18:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that those on the ArbCom who've accepted the request might be keeping on eye on this RFC. In fact if I had to guess, I'd say it's likely that the happenings in this RFC may be what has caused the last couple of them to accept rather than reject. At any rate, I don't see that jumping up and down insisting something must be done is helpful. Particularly, if it appears that an editor has a strong interest in seeing someone "punished", motivations may be considered suspect. To me it looks like this RFC already speaks for itself. Friday 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I reject the characterization that I am "jumping up and down", and I never mentioned anything about "punishment." It simply has become clear that Gabrielsimon hasn't learned anything, and I for one am sick of wasting my time having to undo all the deletions and abusive edits he does on a regular basis even now after all this happened. I just want this resolved, I don't care how. This RfC clearly has not resolved it -- and in fact may have just made him even worse. I wanted to make sure that something is being done to escalate this in whatever ways are approrpriate, that's all. DreamGuy 19:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Without even reading it, my guess is..." Cripes. That's exactly the kind of uncivil behavior that you're being called on here. Nickptar 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

why should i show him civillity when hes done nothing but irritate and be rude to not just me, since ive been here? i know it sounds childish, but this is why he feels hes got a reason to copmplain to me, because i mirror how he treats me, and treat him that way, ill treay anyone how they treat me, its howive always doner hings... ok, not the brightest thing in the world, but it can be quite effective. Gabrielsimon 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that you accuse everyone who modifies your edits of being rude and abusive. That's not what is really going on. When I point out that you erased comments, I am not being rude, I am stating an objective fact. You cannot rationalize away your blatant disregard of Wikipedia policies by trying to point the finger at other people instead of taking responsibility for your own actions. DreamGuy 20:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

i havnt accused everyone of being annoying, rude, and otherwise irratating, ive accused most people of not reading things thoroly, but you, DreamGuy are he only oe i have accused of being rude, obnoxi0us, crude, irratating etc. my blatant disregard? he ignores consensus repeatedly, tho i shuldnt stoop to mud slinging, so ill try to stop that now. Gabrielsimon 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

so anyway

if we are all done here, id ;like to go back to being someone whos not undera microscope if thats all right with you... feel free to post reccomendations for how i should comport myself if you like, but id like it very much if ome admin would delete this page...

Gabrielsimon 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A great number of us have tried to tell you that all along and instead of listening and considering, you defend yourself with word games and selective citations of policy. You have been talked to repeatedly, and the fact that you're being RFCed would indicate that someone thinks you need a beating with the clue bat. Haikupoet 04:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

at this very moment im really tired. aside from that i have taken words from users such as ed poor and kaosworks and seen if i can apply them to how i act... thats still transitional... ( there are othrs, but i forgotthe names) i meant to refer to anyone ELSE who hasnt said something... Gabrielsimon 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Gabriel, you don't get to control the courtroom when you're the one in the dock. Haikupoet 04:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Another point: the Wikipedia guidelines and policies are there for anyone to read, so asking for advice is disingenuous at best. Start with the citations in the RFC as an example of what not to do. Haikupoet 04:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Per my comment below. Haiku, I've viewed GS to be a PITA on several occasions. In spite of that it doesn't give you license to be a jerk, which you were above. (in particular the statement "...someone thinks you need a beating with the clue bat." seems inflamatory). He's annoyed me and I'm still civil, you can be the same. Really, I have poor self control, it's not that hard to be better.  :) Wikibofh 02:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Really, that is so ironic coming from someone whose username ends in "bofh." ;-) android79 02:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually (as I indicated on your talk) it's even better than that. I OWN BOFH.com. The username is not merely posing.  :) Wikibofh 03:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

" if it please the court"

id really like this entire process to be over with please, its been long enough, and i have started to attempt to work mopre as ive been asked...

im getting tired of being under a microscope... would anyone care to delete this article or something, or mark it closed some how? Gabrielsimon 07:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but your recent edits do not support your argument that you're changing your editing behavior per the recommendations of other editors. The main change I'm able to see is that you seem to stop at 3 reverts in a row now instead of 4, to avoid being banned. This is still contrary to the spirit of the 3RR. Please understand that 3RR is not the only rule editors need to follow. The other policies and guidelines that editors keep bringing to your attention are important as well. IMO, your "brute force" approach to getting your opinions heard doesn't seem to have changed. Some editors here have said you've made good contributions; I suspect those edits considered "good" are ones where you've observed guidelines and policies. More of that would be great. I further suspect that if you were to voluntarily hold yourself to the one revert rule, you would avoid much continuing criticism. Friday 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

-

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to think that Gabrielsimon's post is disingenuous. User:Gabrielsimon:Gabrielsimon has consistently demonstrated a lack of regard for NPOV. In addition, his behavior during the RFC has, with clockwork precision, demonstrated beyond all reasonable standards of evidence exactly what User:Pablo-flores put forth in the initial revision. He has continued to make POV edits, he has edited other peoples comments, and has shown an almost clinical lack of understanding of what NPOV means and no interest in fixing that. If he is sincere (which I find unlikely based on his past actions) then I feel that he may be one of the most insidious threats to Wikipedia: A vandal who truly does not understand that what he is doing is vandalism. Because of this, he can repeatedly ask for 'another chance' and express absolutely honest bewilderment at the reaction others have to his edits.

I am not an admin, and I don't profess to know what the correct actions to take are, but if Gabrielsimon remains an active editor, I believe we must accept that there will need to a group of editors who go through each of his edits with a fine-tooth comb for perpetuity. Unfortunately, he has shown no compunctions about using sockpuppetry, so a ban may not solve the problem either.

In conclusion, I feel that the most viable solution for the Gabrielsimon problem is if he 1. Is taught to recognize NPOV, 2. Agrees to honestly work towards improving his behavior regarding reverts (and using Talk to gain consensus), and 3. Makes an honest effort to become a part of the community instead of a threat. If he is unwilling to commit himself to those, then WP would be forced to ban him, his IP, and budget the time needed to combat anonymous POV edits from him until such time as he loses interest in disrupting the database. The costs (both in admin time and lost contributions from Gabrielsimon going forward) of the latter are steep, so I would much prefer the 1-3 approach. In the end, Gabrielsimon will be the only person who can make that work by committing to change. - Chairboy 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have observed Gabe for quite some period now. I have commented on his edits to his discussin page and counseled him on proper behavior. Gabe is not an idiot. He is bright, but highly opinionated. I cannot believe with the plethora of comments, counsel, directions, assistance, and advice that he does not understand how detrimental his actions are to WIKI. Through it all he sails on blindly ignoring everything that has been said to him. Pleas for "taking him under someone's wing" fall on deaf ears. Gabe, my advice is take a long haitus from WIKI. Grow up and learn to be respectful of others. Seek common ground in your life; WIKI is just not the place for you right now. Storm Rider 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon keeps removing sections of this talk page

I have restored some sections that Gabrielsimon removed from this page. Please, everyone, before posting here doublecheck his recent edits to make sure he hasn't removed other people's comments or his rude replies to them... DreamGuy 18:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for the evidence section of the RFC itself, by the way... DreamGuy 18:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for Resolution: 1RR

It seems that most of the problems people are having come down to repeated edits to pages, even when they don't meet the 3RR rule. I think one way to resolve this is to ask Gabriel to live according to the 1RR rule. No one on Wikipedia should be reverting a page more than once, even if you're in the right on the issue (excepting vandalism of course, as defined there). Gabriel, would you be willing to agree to this condition? I think most of the editors who have signed your RfC would say this is a good place to start and, if you agree in good faith, would solve almost all the issues. - grubber 21:13, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

ok Gabrielsimon 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think 1RR is great (you'll note I recommend it on the main page). However, I think someone (not me, I suck at that stuff), needs to step forward to be a mentor as well. Without that I think we're likely to see sporadic, but just as annoying POV inserts. GS has potential, we should try to realize that. If that doesn't work, I'd vote for a ban. Wikibofh 02:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Only doing one revert per article per day would help some, but it doesn't take care of his demonstrated lack of willingness to learn about the concepts of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV (see recent coversations on Talk:Witchcraft where he resisted the efforts of multiple editors who tried patiently several times to explain why unsourced "oral traditions" do not overrule multiple instances of cited scholarly published works), not to mention his extremely recent deletions of evidence in this RfC, deletions of RfC listings for articles he didn't want to see anyone else come in on, and comments by other editors posted on talk pages. Mentoring may help, but he needs to admit that what he is doing isn't acceptable and that he needs to try to learn the right way or all the hand holding in the world won't help. DreamGuy 00:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy. This is a start, but not enough. Gabrielsimon not only does not seem to understand why revert wars are bad, but he also does not seem to understand what gets him into such wars in the first place. I would be surprised if mentoring were fruitful at all, but it might be worth a try. android79 00:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Another Outside View

I did not initially intend to provide another outside view about this editor. In view of the large number of Wikipedians who have signed this RfC, I thought that adding one more person would be, in the terms of American football, "piling on", a form of unnecessary roughness. However, there is an article RfC on Otherkin about its use of original research and lack of verifiability. The history of that article shows that this editor has violated the 3RR rule within the past 24 hours by removing a verifiability and original research tag. I have seen enough evidence now to be willing to sign the summary. Robert McClenon 13:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

i have not sone any such thng. Gabrielsimon 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia history seems to disagree:

[1] "(since there arnt enough books on this subject f the " svolarly " sort, then why think that websites be cosidered origional research for this topic?)"

[2] "(explained now... lets see friday be so srict with everyone else, some time shall we?)"

[3] "(undoing hipocritical user 's change, its a prime example of his hipocracey)"

3 Reverts, and it's an original-research tag being removed each time. - Chairboy 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but 3RR is about reverting MORE than 3 times. So, he's skimming the line and not technically violating the rule. Why he's choosing to walk that line under present circumstances, I cannot fathom. He appears to be interested in following policies only when he feels that the alternative would be a ban. He's certainly not following the writers' rules of engagement. Friday 20:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

i didnt even know about these " rules of engagement" Gabrielsimon 20:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Haikupoet 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

tring to sound pompous and laywer like doesnt makeyou a barrister, if you get rude, i can match you blow for blow. Gabrielsimon 02:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against that gabriel. My intent is for you to be a positive contributer, donating your valuable time and competance to the Wikipedia in a manner others respect and benefit from. Rudeness and other breaches of wikipolicy are not steps towards that goal. I urge you to use my talk page or email, or that of other experienced wikipedians, as a method of aquiring advice and support. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Per (my understanding of) RfC's this was moved from the body over to here. I did it without comment so that I could summarize my edit without it appearing to be subterfuge. GS was certainly aware of 3RR when he violated it the 6th time, on his way to the 7th. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. I think a suitable remedy would be (as proposed above) a 1RR probation for a time (~6 months) and a mentor. I would also like to comment that I think that Haiku is being a bit too rude above. I don't intend for this to be a flamewar or "piling on" as suggest in other portions of discussion. WP:Civil should still apply, even if GS has annoyed me personally. Wikibofh

More comments moved from body of RFC

Although Gabrielsimon may have reverted the 3RR violation and has angered other users by his content and NPOV, I think it is wise that such misgivings not interfere with the work of Wikipedia. A compromise at this point is vital: Gabriel, stop adding controversial/bias content within the encyclopedia. Detractors, please do not bash Gabriel as I have read here before. Some comments here have implied that he has done nothing to benefit this encyclopedia. I believe personally that he has done more to benefit this encyclopedia with over 1,500 edits, and nearly 500 in articles [[4]]. The detractors obviously need to recognize the value of this user, and Gabrielsimon should not add dubious content, and not break the 3RR rule. Dbraceyrules 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a poor argument, i.e. total number of edits = beneficial contributions. When one keeps putting Bullshit into the wiki and does constant reverts, refuses to discuss and edits the same page 4-6 times in a row then it is pretty easy to get lots of edits. The problem is that Gabrielsimon has created more work for others than any benefit he may provide by, IMHO, adding esoteric details to POV's that are already well represented. -- User:205.188.116.14

I had clearly stated that I am not condoning Gabrielsimon's controversial edits. I believe Gabrielsimon desires to make positive changes in this encyclopedia but gets angry at times. This is a poor argument because this person has been accused of vandalism his/herself. I do not think that Gabrielsimon's number of edits give him the right to piss other users off. I said that there should be a compromise! You only implied what I thought. In number of edits, Gabrielsimon has tried to improve this encyclopedia in vampire and otherkin articles, although at times he may not use positive methods. The point is, Gabrielsimon obviously has good intentions - therefore, I still believe compromise is the way to go. That is what an RfC is for, right? Okay, lets compromise. Like I said before: Gabriel, stop adding controversial/bias content within the encyclopedia. Detractors, please do not bash Gabriel as I have read here before.Dbraceyrules 14:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I read your statement as an assertion that the large number of edits itself implied a beneficial contribution. Given the nature of the edits that have come up in this RFC, I can understand why one might take exception to that. I agree that "bashing", if by that you mean personal attacks, is not helpful. However, if by "bashing" you mean discussion of alleged pathological editing behavior, I believe that's the entire purpose of the RFC. Friday 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if I was unclear about my point on the number of edits he made. I still think that a compromise should break through - and I don't think my point is very far fetched (or at least not disagreeing with the other editors). : ) Dbraceyrules 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

To further clarify my point I will post what I had left on the anon user's page:Sorry that you disagreed on my argument, however what I am saying is: Gabrielsimon has good intentions but gets angry sometimes, and therefore may add dubious/controversial stuff to Wikipedia. I don't know if you can be upset, as according to your talk page several people have detected vandalism from this IP address. In the end I just want a compromise. I don't think Gabrielsimon is right by adding his opinions in articles, but I do believe that Gabrielsimon has outstanding potential as an excellent editor on this sight. He only deserves a second chance. I don't know if you'll agree with that but I think a second chance and compromise: that is, that detractors stop bashing Gabriel, and that he avoids adding dubious content in the encyclopedia - is the best, and most kind method of resolving the dispute. Dbraceyrules 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is the man deserves another chance, yeah I hear the argument already that he has had multiple chances. Well, okay, hopefully the RfC will get him to respond. If not, he can just suffer the consequences. Come on, even some of the complainants on the other page said that the man had potential as an editor. Why not see him for what he is worth and allow him to put good info on the encyclopedia? Why not? Dbraceyrules 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, forget it. This isn't my battle, I tried to win it but could not. Dbraceyrules 19:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That is the way I feel about trying to help Gabrielsimon - a sense of frustration and futility. I do appreciate your efforts with GS - I just hope his signal to noise ratio improves 100 fold - Hopefully he will respond to these comments - he is young - I am sure that he can be a positive force with some effort on his part. - User:205.188.116.14

PS - I use AOL as my browser and that results in edits from many different users on teh same IP - for example, this edit is likely much different from the IP than the 205.188.116.14 I was editing from when I first encountered GS.

• Per (my understanding of) RfC's this was moved from the body over to here. Wikibofh 17:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I see reasons for hope

While it probably took more energy than it should have, the situation on Witchcraft has settled down, and Gabriel has stopped making bad edits. I do agree that some of the treatment he has received from some editors may have been a mite overzealous, perhaps more about pointing out wrongdoing than gently, firmly, guiding a wayward editor. The appearence of bullheaded intransigence on Gabriel's part, and the prolific nature of his roughshod edits certainly did not help his situation. Recent comments from him confirm, to me, that he's willing, ultimately and after much persistence and patience on the part of his fellow editors, to come around. In an ideal world, it wouldn't take so much effort, but this isn't a "members-only" club, and there isn't a single edit made that can't be corrected. I'm a fairly new editor, myself, and I'm very pleased to see that the process works, after all, even if it can be more than a little frustrating at times. Parker Whittle 04:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is good news. I too see reason to be hopeful. Gabriel, I know we've had our disgreements, but I'm very happy you've agreed to the one revert rule. And I think your most recent editing behavior has been quite an improvement. It looks to me like you've taken to more discussion on the talk pages, and this can only be a good thing. Friday 06:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too certain that things are getting better. After the 1RR he agreed to on July 27, the very next day he was back to 3 reverts on the Mysticism page[5]. His actions are speaking much more loudly than his words. --Blainster 16:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

it wasnt reverts, if you read the edit summaries, its a discussion with shown changes. Gabrielsimon 20:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

From looking at the diffs, I see that you made two reversions. One was reverting back the removal of "S", the other was reverting back the removal of the entire word "God". In general, I think most of the time if you're repeatedly and quickly removing another editor's changes, you're violating the spirit of the one revert rule. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the rule, I'm just throwing out an opinion. Friday 21:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, these are clear reverts. You wanted to add (s) to the end of God, so you did it once and after being reverted by Jayjg, did so again. After a second revert by Jayjg, you decided to excise the word God once and then again after again being reverted by Jayjg. While not technically a violation of the 3RR, this is definitely a violation of the 1RR as I assumed you had agreed to follow after advice given here. Also, this is your only edit to the Mysticism talk page, which appears to have nothing to do with the reverts shown above (and indeed was added after the reverts occurred). This was not a "discussion with shown changes," it was an attempt to force your POV into the article, one way or the other. android79 21:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No 1RR anymore?

Gabriel, did you give up on following the one revert rule? It looks to me like you're not even attempting to observe it anymore. Friday 20:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

i slept between sessions. Gabrielsimon 20:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He violated his 1RR on Vampire and Vampire fiction yesterday, and he used that excuse to me when I called him on it. Has he been doing this elsewhere also? He already knows it's for 24 hour periods (and was told this several times back in the many blocks for 3RR) so if this is happening elsewhere I'd have to seriously wonder if it was actually an accident or not. DreamGuy 20:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the incident is on Mysticism with reverts on 10:48, July 31, 2005 [6] and 14:24, July 31, 2005 [7]... A look at his edit history shows that he was making edits between those times as well. The sleeping claim doesn't make much sense. DreamGuy 21:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention of sleep that I saw in the rule. Have you actually read it? I could say I took a 3 hour nap anytime, it doesn't change anything. I see a pattern of behavior here; when you break the rules, you frequently say you misunderstood them, or claim extenuating circumstances. You've been given incredibly lenient treatment, yet you continue to to act like the rules are no concern to you. Sadly, I have started to agree with the RfA on you, for the same reasons: this RFC is having no effect. If you want to demonstrate good faith, please: stop making excuses, and start playing nice with other editors. Friday 20:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

One would think Gabrielsimon's continued removal of other editors' comments from this talk page would be enough for an ArbCom case in and of itself. Please stop. android79 20:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• (Can we refer to what he does as simonizing?) Anyway, yeah. What is the procedure for reopening an RfA, anyway? Haikupoet 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's already been started, and appears to have been accepted by the ArbCom committee, though it hasn't moved into the evidence phase yet. android79 00:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

pardon me, but i AM trying to do what i said id do, i dont come with a manual, i cant just turn on parts of my brain and turn others off like switches, things TAKE TIME. would people PLEASE leave me alone.?? your getting rather aggravating. Gabrielsimon 23:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And then after he says this he makes his second revert on Otherkin in less than an hour, falsely claiming he was "removing vandalism" to try to justify his violation of the 1RR... He clearly has no intention of following his agreement and that means he has not done anything at all to try to work toward improving his behavior as a result of this RfC. DreamGuy 00:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

adding POV material over and overagain IS vandalism, so i remove it with impunity. stop complaining, suck it up, and go find something usefull to do with your time, please Gabrielsimon 00:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

First up, it's not POV material, as agreed upon by other editors there, and secondly, POV is NOT vandalism, you know this, you've been told this several times, and it's quite ridiculous for you to be making that claim. DreamGuy 01:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

adding out of context weasle words is indeed POV and vandaliosm, please stop bieng full of yourself and acecpt this, learn to stop complaining about everything i do ( maybe a better hobby is in order)and above all else, have an notherwise hoopy day. Gabrielsimon 01:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

First, your characterization of the changes are inaccurate, second, even if they were true, they would not count as vandalism, as you should know by now, having been told this many, many, many times in context of the 3RR when you've been banned previously. You have now erased a talk page comment giving you a direct link to the section in the Vandalism article proving you wrong. You have also reverted an article *four* times in a couple of hours when you promised only one a day...You not only blew your 1RR, you blew 3RR as well!DreamGuy 01:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

im really getting sick of this

this whole put me under the microscope thing has been going on for a while now, ive siad id work on it, peole have asked for what they wanted of me, and i AM working on it, so how about people leaving me in peace now?? please? Gabrielsimon 01:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

frid, i even unwatched the spetember 11 plane crash atacks article thingee, so that i wouldnt get into shit about that any more... come on, please just let me out of the petrie dish. Gabrielsimon 01:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

getting reallly sick of the constant harrasssmenrt

noirmally i wouldnt do this but hear me out [obscenity]! ALL OF YOU, i have heard what you asked for and i have beghun to adapt that into hwo i do things wh here ,m things TAKE TIME, and peioople WONT LEEAVE ME [obscenity] ALONE they are even adding trumped up charges that have no basis in reality. so in sort, yes, i am sorry for swearing BUT BACK [obscenity] OFF! your DRIVING ME NUTS! Gabrielsimon 02:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

May I ask which charges are trumped up? Nickptar 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

one example is the lastest 3rr vio charge from DreamGuy.

Gabrielsimon 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing trumped up about that charge. You said you were following a 1RR and instead you reverted a page 4 (or 5, depending on how you count the last one) times in only a few hours. You need to accept that your behavior is not acceptable or you will never improve. Claiming that they are lies and it's just someone out to get you when the charges are there in black and white and undeniable is just nonsensical. You reverted those pages. You did that. As much as you try to justify it to yourself, what you did was against the policies here, and a betrayal of your promise to use to only revert an article once a day. You need to accept that you were wrong and that you can't blame other people for it or else you will never get any better. DreamGuy 04:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

when this started, i saw that some epole had a point, so i bheard them out, i was playing along, i saw that peopel had legitimate compalints, so i started adapting how i do things, BUT no one will leave me alone, i would appreciate it if people would declare this thing closed now and give me some freaking SPACE.... has anyone ever heard of just not badgering me??? this is beginning to border on harrassemenrt, and dreanguys usingthis as a way to push tumped up shit that i didnt even do its lie, hes pushingto try to get me banned, so if people wouldnt mind, CLOSE this dammned thing, STOP harrassing me and above all, try to have a hoopy day Gabrielsimon 02:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand what's going on here. The fact is that you just are not getting the message on how your actions are disrupting Wikipedia, and it seems like almost every time you do something there's a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law somewhere in there. Rather than trying to understand what we're trying to tell you, you try to rationalize it. As for saying you've adapted how you do things, the evidence to support that statement isn't there, and in fact you've made it worse for yourself trying to control the flow of conversation. Haikupoet 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

perhaps you would like to be in the pertrie dish for a while and see how you like it? then you might see why pweople just have to give me some space. i already agreed to make some consessions, burt no ones allowing any time to pass at all, whuikle i try tro do te adapting part.] in fact some people, lke dreamguy seem to be enjoying finding more fake comolainsts to shove in here. Gabrielsimon 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As a data point, the major incident tonight appears to be a disagreement on Otherkin - there was a brief revert war which is at the top of the history at [8], should anyone want to check it out. Vashti 03:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gabrielsimon, I wish to respectfully disagree with the characterization you've given. If the claims against you were without merit, then they would fall apart on their own. Unfortunately, as the number of editors involved has shown, you are continuing to exhibit disruptive wikipedia tendencies that are reducing the quality of the wikipedia. There is no conspiracy against you, and the attention you are getting is entirely of your own creation. Consider, for a moment, the status of the RfC votes. Look at the number of people endorsing each statement. At what point, I ask, do you stop assuming that it's everyone else that has the problem, instead of you? Please, stop messing around with the reverts. Stop adding pov, stop being a wikilawyer when retaliating against others for perceived slights, and stop doing things that help make the case against you. - Chairboy 03:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

which was DreamGuy trying to insert what seem o me to be weasel words, scientific point of biew means nothing in a matter of spirutality, its totally out of context, so hgis putting Alleged was totally unacceptable seeming tp me, and his insistance seemed b of vandaliscious intent for he was not listeining to reason. Gabrielsimon 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Science isn't the be-all and end-all, but we do have to try to be neutral. The fact that we've all managed to agree on the change now when we didn't before indicates that it's more neutral than it was previously. Sadly, a lot of your edits are along the lines of putting "Jesus, born in the year 0 in a manger in Bethlehem, really was the Son of God and he's coming back to smite the lot of you" - this is all very well if it's what you happen to believe, but people who aren't Christians have to agree that the text is neutral too. Likewise, people who aren't otherkin also have to agree that the text is neutral. That's what Wikipedia is about. Getting there can be complex and difficult and annoying, but there it is. Vashti 03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

he keeps trying to weasel in things that basically say " by the way, these idiots are wrong" in some way or another, when the edits i was trying to have plced in there simplu said what they believed and left the moral judgement outsiode of the text. Gabrielsimon 03:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, no... the edits I placed there actually were to clarify that the things being discussed were beliefs and not proven. If you wanted to say "what they believed" then you would have accepted my changes as is. You just jump in and assume that what I am doing is wrong and go ahead and undo it without thinking about it... like you've done on a whole string of other articles. DreamGuy 04:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

on a page about a BELIEF you dont put anything about prooven or unprooven, its out of context. your just being stubborn , as always. why cant you ever admit to fallibillity? Gabrielsimon 04:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is not widely accepted that there is a real biological difference between otherkin and humans. I do not believe there is. Possibly I am wrong and you are right. But to get along on Wikipedia and in the real world, you'll have to put up with skepticism about all your beliefs. Vashti is right - your favored section headings are equivalent to saying "He is the Son of God" in Jesus. A lot of people believe that, and a lot of people don't (I quite strongly don't), so we do have to be, well, weaselly about it - Jesus was the Son of God according to Christians. Otherkin have biological differences according to those who believe in them. This isn't saying that any one side is right or wrong - that's very important because I'm not sure you see the difference between the statements "X may not be true" and "X is false and the people who believe it are idiots". This is very reminiscent of your first edit war, on vampire lifestyle - surely you've learned a few things since then. Nickptar 05:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

why then is there not any secions insterted and accepted to say ": christianity - medical perseectives" or as it was intendted " reasons why these people are crazy" etc in other articles, i mean we justrecently got those justifiyably removed, and it seems to me that that is fair, becaue there are n such sections on other belief related articles. Gabrielsimon 05:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be if such perspectives existed and were documented. I left a comment further elaborating this on your talk page. And the presence of medical perspectives in no way states that "these people are crazy". The skeptical POV needs to be represented too, even if you take it as an insult. I'm sorry for my harshness, but this is (as far as I can tell) how things work around here. Nickptar 05:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

a nnoying comments from baiing editor remopved. Gabrielsimon 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)