Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Id rweally rather not be blocked for a month, if its all teh same to you. youll note that the edits that this account have made to the canadian residential scools article are NPO, and csourced.Gavin the Chosen 17:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin,

With all respect, I think this remedy is firm but extremely fair. You will remember that your Gavin the Chosen account got blocked _its very first day_ on matters that had nothing to do with the RfC/RfAr or any of the users that you have had quarrels with. I've seen some good signs out of you in the past couple of days, it is true, but also some very worrysome ones, as witness your most recent block for deleting comments by another user. I think you need to take a break and, before you do more work on Wikipedia, you need to read and understand--thoroughly--the policies that you have run into trouble with: vandalism, sock puppetry, NPOV, no original research, etc. You seem to feel that "go forth and sin no more" is an appropriate reaction to all the disruption you have caused to this project. Especially since your last block, I'm afraid I can't agree.

--Craigkbryant 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The first day block was actully a misunderstnading, which was for fifteen minutes, for which i have apologized, and i have altered my behaviour foer n more Fnord! ing.

as for the other block, well, i make some mistakes that i cant excuse, but i can fix the behaviour later on.Gavin the Chosen 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

to explain, i was told to stop adding Fnord to random places, and i stopped, but it sems that others , removing some more ofthem, incited Ed to block me, because he likly beleived i was still doing it.Gavin the Chosen 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

you know why i asked Voice of all to do the sock checking thing? i thought it was a way of retaining cover, in hoeps of making people who, well, seemed to persecute me, to stay away. notthe best plan, but it was the only one at the timeGavin the Chosen 22:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All this confusion

I'll try to limit this just to the matter at hand, but I think I'll wind up touching on other related issues.

The problem is judgment. Gabriel shows poor judgment and needs to be corrected. This is hard, because by Wikipedia tradition, all contributors are deemed to be equal in "editorial judgment" (indeed, even equal in determining whether someone is sabotaging the project, being a pest, trolling, etc.)

After striking up a friendship with Gabriel, I got him to agree that I could suspend his account outside of an arbcom pronouncment. I did not do this vigorously, due to incessant pressure from other users berating me for taking matters into my own hands too much. Apparently a sizeable majority want every decision put up for a vote first. Senior admins (dismissively labled bureaucrats) are simply to carry out "the will of the community". This is supposed to be determined by consensus - presumbaly of the same sort that has scientists in consunsus that "greenhouse emissions" are causing global warming.

Anway, trying to focus purely on the matter at hand: I have not been more vigorous or pro-active in guiding (and checking) Gabriel, because of the "wolves at my door" effect of having every decision I make as an admin or a bureaucrat (egad, I hate that word) questioned and then used as ammunition against me. If I had to stand for re-election, I'd surely lose.

Now people are saying, in effect, that because my gentle and tentative approach didn't work, they certainly aren't going to authorize me to take a more forceful approach. This harks back to Wikipedia's original dilemma: the either/or of (1) let people do whatever they want here, until (2) Jimbo puts his foot down and permanently bans them.

Nobody wants anyone to have to be under someone else's authority here. Because no one wants to admit that someone's judgment (or good will, or devotion, or concern for others) could be better than theirs. After all, we're all equal here. This relates to Larry Sanger's rant about "anti-elitism" (see especially the quotes at Wikipedia talk:anti-elitism).

I'm about fed up. I can't go on like this. On the one hand, Fred is voting to put a major matter into arbitration (whether I go too far with admin and b'op functions); on the other, he's entertaining a proposal that I be given precisely the authority which others want to crucify me for excercising heretofore. I'm just overwhelmed by it all.

I know this isn't the time and place for it, but I'm just a human being, and the pressure has gotten to me. I've got better things to do than this. I want to help make an encyclopedia which is comprehensive and unbiased, and I had hoped Wikipedia might be it - or at least part of it.

I need a clearer statement of support from the community, if I'm going to stay here and struggle against the forces of disorder and confusion.

Give me that, and I'll gladly stay and help Gabriel learn how to edit. And many others will profit from observing the process. And others can get a similar mentorship. Uncle Ed 17:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm of conflicting views here, Ed. On the one hand, I feel you've made one very large mistake among a large body of great and important work. Taking matters into your own hands is essential to Wikipedia, but in one instance (deleting VfD) you went too far, to the point of disruption. I've not had any issues with the decisions I've seen you make since then. If the RFC/RFAr experience has tempered your habit of rushing to action because you've realized maybe you are a bit hasty at times, that's a very good thing, and I support you completely. If it has tempered this habit out of a desire to avoid punishment, that's probably okay too. Either way, the end result is we have a dedicated and thoughtful editor and administrator who sometimes rushes into things, but hopefully more often than not, stops to think about it before committing to action.

On the other hand, I believe Gabrielsimon/Gavin the Chosen is a lost cause. If you've developed a rapport with him and sincerely feel he can not only cease to be a disruptive force on Wikipedia, but also become a valuable contributor, then you've got my skeptical but firm support on this matter, given two conditions: he takes a nice long Wikibreak (at least a month) before he resumes editing and menteeship, and any sign that he is returning to his old ways results in a significant block. android79 18:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I don't believe that anything wrt this matter reflects negatively on you. Quite the contrary.

I don't believe that "mentorship" arrangements are effective at Wikipedia for reasons that I have articulated before, in wrt the matter of Netoholic. In general, I believe that any enforced remedy that involves editorial supervision by other users is contrary to the Wikipedia spirit. Wikipedia is built upon egalitarian ideals, where everyone can edit collaboratively with no hierarchy. The ability to edit constructively in such an environment is an essential requirement for ongoing participation. People who can't handle that, whether by reason of lack of maturity, mental illness, disability, or unwillingness to accept authority from the community, should be asked to leave. Creating a set of second-class Wikipedians, by means of "revert paroles," "personal attack paroles," "mentorships," and whatnot is, IMO, an abdication of responsibility by the AC and counter to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed,

I am manifestly unqualified to discuss the broader issues of the nature of Wikipedia that you touch upon in the discussion above. I do understand that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or anarchy, and I share what I take to be your exasperation at what seems to be the growing sentiment that Wikipedia should be run by parliamentary procedure.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else who has voiced reservations about this mentorship scheme, but I can tell you why I was worried about it: I didn't see anything in the explanation of the proposed remedy that made it look different from the arrangement that you, SlimVirgin and Gabriel worked out back in early August. It was described in very similar language; you spoke of a "teaching" and a "supervisory" relationship with Gabriel in the context of the original agreement. Your comments above make it sound as if you are proposing something very different from the August 9 agreement, something involving much more immediate and active supervision of Gabriel's activities. That might be more palatable to the various people who have been involved in this matter. But I would be grateful for some further clarification on the sort of relationship you are proposing, and how you would want to manage it. You recently said on your user page, "I am not a babysitter." Which is fair, but I think that something like that, or, shall we say, a committed personal tutor and supervisor, is what Gabriel needs if this is going to work.

I hope I don't come off as argumentative or whining in this message. I am certain that there are editors who only want Gabriel's head, and aren't interested in any other solution. But I genuinely think that most of us wanted a different resolution, one that involved Gabriel learning how to follow policy and be a constructive rather than a disruptive force. I think most people would still be open to such a solution, if we could have any confidence that it was going to be different this time. Can you give us that confidence?

Yours,

Craig--Craigkbryant 19:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The agreement I reached with Gabriel (I can't speak for Ed) was not that I mentor him. (I would not have agreed to do that.) It was only that I would unblock his IP address, which was blocked when I blocked one of his sockpuppets indefinitely, on the strict understanding that he would be re-blocked (i.e. blocked indefinitely) the next time he violated any of our policies. That didn't happen because several editors told me they felt it was too harsh, and so instead I developed an arrangement with him whereby he'd be blocked for a short period (at least 24 hours) when I saw a policy violation. That's more of a monitoring relationship, so it's possible a proper mentoring situation could work.

Having said that, I don't believe it will, because it would take a tremendous amount of work and I think would require more than one mentor. This is the kind of edit Gabriel makes: "It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough afghani territory to a port thats none to far away, and thier objections was the cause of the invasion and destruction of the government there."

In order to be fair to other editors, the mentor would have to ensure that no more edits like this are made, and that means having to check, correct, or delete every single edit Gabriel makes, and then stick around (for hours) to make sure he doesn't revert. I don't see how it can work, because the fundamental issue here is that Gabriel can't or won't exercise self-control, so he's just as likely to revert the mentor as anyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I wish to appologize if I have mis-characterized your actions. Looking back on the relevant statements, I can certainly see that your language has been more along the lines of "monitoring" than "mentoring." What I have probably done is take your comments and Ed's, then conflate them into some kind of composite mental image leavened with my own assumptions. I'm appreciative of everything you've done in this matter; you deserve a lot of thanks for your perseverence and level-headedness. Your comments above seem spot-on to me.--Craigkbryant 21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Craig. My previously italicized "agreement was not that I mentor him" was a little too emphatic, but it was inadvertent. You have nothing to apologize for. ;-)

I don't really mind a composite mental image of Ed and me as the good fairy. It's just that I think our wand isn't working. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents - Ed, I don't believe that what we're dealing with her with regards to Gabriel has any connection with your other actions that are the subject of RfC and RfAr, so it's probably better for your stress levels and will alleviate some of the confusion in your mind if you keep the two separate. If you feel there's a conflict between what is expected of you in one situation and another, then perhaps it may be wise to distance yourself from Gabriel's case entirely, or not exercise any powers and hand it off to some other admin. You don't have to do it yourself.

That being said, I don't believe any mentoring, or monitoring scheme will work with Gabriel. He has lied, argued, whined and begged his way into so many last chances I've lost count. He's been blocked, and he comes back again. He's been warned off certain topics, and he's come back again. He's agreed to certain conditions and he's broken them. All this shows to me that negotiating with Gabriel is a useless endeavour.

He is simply not someone that can be reasoned with. He will nod nicely, perhaps even change his behaviour for a little while, but once he feels he can get away with it, he will revert to type. He will do this because he simply does not acknowledge or accept, regardless of what he tells you, that what he did before was wrong. He will do this because he does not appreciate intellectually or emotionally what it means to be NPOV, neutral or not to indulge in original research. And he takes reversions and edits personally. Every edit you make that alters one of his is, to him, an indictment of him as a person, that he cannot type well, or write well, or express himself well. And that kind of insecurity and defensiveness is what makes him lash out like the little kid he really is.

He needs to grow up, get out, play around, associate with people, but I do not see why we need to provide him social therapy, or tolerate his acting out when we are engaged in trying to create and maintain an encyclopedia.

Look at his pattern of edits. Look at his pattern of behaviour and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there where we draw the line, and when our patience will be exhausted. I've certainly seen people banned for less.

I urge people: don't buy his "poor little me" routine anymore. Don't even consider that a lot of his troubles come from conflicts with a particularly obnoxious user (who is also up to RfAr). Consider his actions and the quality of his edits in isolation, objectively, and tell me you can honestly say that you see him changing in the short term, or that it's worth us holding his hand to make him do so. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel e-mailed me with the following:

here is no poor little me rpoutine. and you have no right to say that i can not be reasoned with , having not even tried. do not speak such things publicly if you do not wish a response to them.

If you do dislike me so much, why not justsay it?

To which I merely respond:

1. I'm wondering what kind of response you mean - am I now to expect disruptive reprisals? I sincerely hope not. If you mean a reasoned response or rebuttal, I welcome that. I will simply point you to efforts by other well-meaning editors that have consistently failed. It is on those that I have based my opinion.
2. I do not dislike you, Gabriel. I do not like you, either. I am, ultimately, indifferent to your existence. What I do dislike is your actions, which I feel are actually harming Wikipedia. If you cannot appreciate the difference it only goes to support my contention that you take things too personally. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)