Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Competence

1) Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I'm not happy about demanding that people need competence in proper syntax, grammar and spelling. These things are easy to fix by anyone. It's more important to know how to identify and provide quality sources, to understand how NPOV works, to have the maturity to cooperate with other editors, and to truly understand our policies such as 3RR. Incompetence in these areas cannot be fixed by the wikiprocess. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. I agree up to a limit. Yes, understanding policy is more important, but if one editor's contributions are always written with poor syntax, grammar, and spelling, other editors inevitably get frustrated at having to clean up messes. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Sdo you dont really like me not always being able to typeas well as i would like to huh? tough beans, as far as i am aware of, its not against policey to have been hit by a car and had ones hand rebuilt, almost fromthe point ofbeing severed fromthe rest of me, Im sorry to anyone who puit that there that i do not meet your huigh standards, but Puh=leese, i do the very bes i can.Gavin the Chosen 00:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Although I'm not insensitive to disabilities, it's something that has to be worked with to improve the quality of the edits, independent of POV. I think Ed recommended doing edits in a word processor where you can run a spellchecker, and I think that would be a great idea. As an example, ignoring the fact it's part of an ongoing revert war between yourself and DreamGuy, this edit has 3 obvious spelling/typing errors. To your credit, you do clean on one of them here but then go on to add two more. Use available tools make your edits stronger, and the work of your critics harder. Wikibofh 06:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. I give up. This is inexcusable. He just doesn't get it. Wikibofh 06:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  1. His disabilities are one thing, but they are the least of his problems. Spelling mistakes we can fix, but substantively, he has yet to learn NPOV nor how to play nice with others. This is the intellectual and emotional maturity problem I can get behind and say that Gabriel has severe difficulty with and his recent activity continues to make me doubt that he will ever improve. The rest are just trappings that can be fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Immature behavior

1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [1], [2]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [3] and scrambled syntax and spelling [4].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Dreamguy has nothing to do with this. What I suggest is that if you have some trouble with someone that you not concentrate on them as a problem. Fred Bauder 03:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. this is very likly to be Dreamguys addition to this page, considering that it primarily seems to focus on myt delaings with him. well heres a thought, how would any of you react when someone refuses to show civillity fr months on end? you get annoyed, as forhte FNORD! ing, well thats been solved.Gavin the Chosen 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Findings of facts, proposals, etc. are all by admins and not by myself. Other than a few minutes ago I hadn't even provided any official evidence or comments on the workshop. It is tiring to see Gabriel try to blame all his behavior on me, especially when a large percentage of the evidence here is about articles I had nothing to do with. DreamGuy 05:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Serial probation

1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I'm happy with the indefinate nature of this remedy. I've never liked the idea of limiting AC decrees to a year. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think Gabrielsimon needs more time off initially. At least 3 months. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. isnt a month kindq extreme? A week mght be a little more, well, realistic, in my opinion.Gavin the Chosen 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. I think a month is the bare minimum needed here. His actions have been going on for something like five months now and are progressively worse and worse instead of better. On his new name which was supposed to be a "fresh start" he has only been around since August 7 but has already had three 24 hour blocks (plus a 15 minute block the first day and a requested extra block), and this last one could have been 48 hours if I had pressed for enforcement on a second 3RR violation [5]. Pretty much immediately when he comes back from a block he does another offense to get himself blocked yet again. He just doesn't seem to want to make a good faith effort to change. DreamGuy 10:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I believe Gabriel has agreed to the one-month ban: See User talk:Gavin the Chosen#arb com message. Personally, I applaud this gesture of good faith. Friday (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. The recent RfAr against DreamGuy pretty much proves there is no good faith going on here, whatsoever. Hipocrite 03:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
you clearly dont know anything about hat that guys put me through.Gavin the Chosen 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serial probation limited to total of one year

1.1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 2 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans. At the end of one year from closing of this case Gabrielsimon will be released from any current ban and his case reviewed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. An alternative Fred Bauder 22:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. As mentioned before, why does ti have to be sucha long block? a month i a bit on the excessive side , specially considering that i dont vandalize.Gavin the Chosen 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Response to Gavin: POV-pushing, edit warring, 3RR violation, and deleting other users' comments are all at least as bad as vandalism. ~~ N (t/c) 15:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Response to Nickptar: Such activities, in my opinion, are worse than simple vandalism which can be reverted by any editor. Constant warring and dubious edits detract from the ability of other editors to work on the pages concerned. On minority interest pages such as Otherkin, this is likely to mean that active work on the page ceases altogether. Vashti 07:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor, Mentor

1) Ed Poor (talk · contribs) shall serve as a mentor of Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs). He shall guide and advise GS with respect to adequate editing and handling of disputes. GS must agree to this remedy and to giving Ed Poor the power to temporarily block his account. Mentorship will end after one year but may be extended by mutual consent.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Ed Poor made this offer. Fred Bauder 12:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Attempts at mentorship have proven a dismal failure so far. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. It's very nice of Ed to make such an offer, and I admire his patience. However, I have reservations. Hasn't Ed already been functioning in this role? Last I heard, the new account Gabriel is using (User:Gavin the Chosen) has been blocked several times in just 3 weeks, even with Ed and SlimVirgin bending over backwards to mentor. I do believe Ed and Slim are doing a great job, but the disruptive behavior hasn't stopped, or even appeared to slow down. Friday (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. I wish to add my voice to Friday's reservations. A similar arrangement has been in effect since August 7, when Gabriel, Ed Poor and SlimVirgin worked out a mentoring arrangement. Since then, Gabriel has been blocked seven times in less than three weeks. These blocks have been for simple, simple things, like violating 3RR. In many cases, Gabriel has been allowed to edit war over articles day in and day out, as long as he doesn't do four reverts. What I mean to say is that the terms of this mentorship have not been at all strict. In fact, they have been remarkably lenient...and Gabriel keeps getting blocked, over and over again. Simple mentorship has been tried, and it has failed. Please see evidence presented by SlimVirgin. Thank you, --Craigkbryant 15:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. This isn't so much a proposed remedy as something that has already been shown to be completely useless. Both Ed and SlimVirgin have tried to act as mentors for almost a month now, having volunteered this as a result of Gabriel's RFC, and there's been no indication that he slowed down his violations at all. In fact, he seems to have increased them, which is especially remarkable considering he has slso been blocked for a significantly large percentage of the month... this means he has gotten more blockable offenses in during less time was he had editing ability on articles. Even his current list of blocks don't tell the whole story, as Gabriel also had two different 3RR violations that were acknowledged by the mentors which were not punished in what SlimVirgin described as a gift to Gabriel for having a new job and not wanting to stress him out... And earlier he was up for a 48 hour block for a second case of 3RR violations and SlimVirgin asked me to not push for that one because he had already been blocked for 24 hours for another offense... I could not understand why they were trying so hard to give him more chances, but I agreed as long as she undid his edits to the way they were before he started revert wars, which she has since ended up doing several times. If he had been punished for all of his offenses I'd guess his blocks would have been nearly twice as many as what they already were. Gabriel is frequently blocked within a day of having an old block removed. His offenses typically start right away when he gets back, just taking a while for the 3RR violation to kick in or an admin to catch up with him. These violations are almost always for the exact same situations he had just been blocked for. This very clearly is not working at all, and I can;t see it being worth anyone's time to try again. When it takes two admins and a string of other editors to try to keep one rogue editor from causing problems, something else needs to be done. Gabriel has had about 12 "second chances" at this point, and probably about 5 "final chances." Enough is enough. DreamGuy 19:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Discussing the current arrangement with GS/GtC, Ed has recently said, "I'm not a babysitter." [6] To be honest, the only way I see this working is if someone is a babysitter. Gabriel needs serious handholding to help him understand our community norms and systems. The current system is awkward and irritating for other editors - if Slim and Ed aren't around when Gabriel makes a misstep, the situation quickly escalates into very hard feelings all around. I understand the impulse to be generous, but maybe the best a mentor can do is help Gabriel decide whether or not he belongs here. FreplySpang (talk) 13:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I applaud your generosity, but I don't think it'll work, primarily because several people have been holding Gabriel's hand over the last several weeks, and he still hasn't listened. I don't see how a mentoring scheme will prove any different. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point, then. Maybe it will work if someone babysits him more closely than they are now. For instance, making "editing appointments" with his mentor and not allowing him to edit when his mentor isn't available to respond quickly. But I agree, naming a mentor who would basically continue the current arrangement is not going to work . FreplySpang (talk) 14:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Limit

Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per week per article. If he reverts more than this he may be blocked up to 24 hours as per the WP:3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I really think we need this. Revert warring is getting worse not better, and he needs to learn that revert warring is simple not acceptable. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. How about 1 a day per article, total of ten per day? Fred Bauder 14:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    1. Knock it down to 1 a day per article total of three per day and I can live with it. Ten a day gives him far too much scope for revert war fun and games. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      1. I agree with Theresa. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I like this quite a lot because it's something new, that hasn't been tried before. I think most editors feel that reverting is the #1 problem behavior we have in this case, so a tight limit on reverts seems appropriate and helpful. Friday (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. My difficulty with this, though, is that the penalty defeats the policy. Say he reverts twice on the first day- and he is blocked for 24 hours. He comes back on day three, reverts again, and is blocked for 24 hours. He comes back on day five, reverts and is blocked for 24... he has now reverted four times within a week, and all he has to show for it is that he's been delayed a day in between. In effect, the one revert a week rule becomes a four revert a week capability. Not as bad as a continuous revert war, sure, but it simply makes it a slow war. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. Additional comment: This - even if you consider the 1 a day, 3 max a day proposal - requires near-constant monitoring of his User Contributions list. Who is going to do this? Can they afford the time? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. A few Gabriel-watchers combined should suffice, notifying Slim or Ed if they see a violation. I would do this. Also, maybe he should be forced to have a notice on his user page of this revert limit, enabling anyone watching an article he wars on to catch him... although this smacks of public humiliation. Finally, I would support a revert limit of zero - he needs to learn to discuss his changes if they're questioned. ~~ N (t/c) 14:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As for a no revert rule - We need to take into account accidental violations. What if he goes to a page makes a change which is reverted - Some time later he goes back to that same page, forgets he already made a change and makes essentially the same change again. I would not want him to so little leeyway that he cannot aviod violating the rule accidentally on occasion. I feel he needs the know that if he chooses to violate the rule, he is also choosing a block. The two go hand in hand. That IMO is the only way he will learn. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This could easily be abused, as GS frequently makes excuses along the lines of "I forgot." It's reasonable to expect any other editor to know if an edit would be considered a revert in violation of the 3RR (or 1RR or 0RR, as the case may be here). Why not this particular editor? android79 15:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The only he will learn is if he also learns to be more careful - in other words, the onus is on him to check that he isn't reverting; no excuses like "I forgot". The lack of leeway is precisely what is needed, if we are to avoide abuses. I still think that the penalty of 24 hours is too small, because as I pointed out, he can easily trade one for the other. 48 or 72 would be better. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The remedy on the voting page proposes blocks of up to 1 week. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Proposed decisions. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for providing for that - I think it's the wiser move. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Procedure if ban is broken

1) Should Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) return using any sockpuppet during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Uhh, since the "sokpuppets" were failed attempts to make a new main account, why is this even important?Gavin the Chosen 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. Gabriel's claim is absolutely untrue for the sockpuppets User:Ketrovin and User:Khulhy, as he was using those at the same time as his original account User:Gabrielsimon, having conversations with himself, using two of them to vote on a VfD for an article the third wrote, etc. DreamGuy 05:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. This does not necessarily refer to your past sockpuppetry (although DreamGuy is right about that); it's a standard stipulation. ~~ N (t/c) 15:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of revert limit

2) Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Covers concerns above about revert limit being unenforcable Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by Android79

The following is a description of a revert war, 3RR violation, and blocking of Gabrielsimon that took place at George W. Bush. I believe it is a typical example of the kinds of behavior Gabrielsimon has engaged in during revert wars on political articles. Gabrielsimon ignores the advice and complaints of other editors, makes small changes to his continually reinserted edits in order to "get around" the 3RR, and presents an illogical and POV claim backed up with dubious sources (newspaper editorials, blog entries). In short, he attempts to present his POV as fact and ram it into the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The dialogue on Talk:George_W._Bush is at Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#Bush.27s_war_is_based_on_his_faith and Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#ARTICLE_PROTECTED. Fred Bauder 12:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

All times are UTC-5. android79 04:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1

Gabrielsimon adds a poorly-worded, illogical, and unsourced "War for Oil" claim into George W. Bush. [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The addition by Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is unsourced and apparently novel. It seems that Iraq had opposed the building of an oil pipeline across the country. This is the real reason for the war. Proof given by GS is that no weapons of mass destruction were found. Fred Bauder 01:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Novel, and illogical. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 2

Gabrielsimon is reverted by Rhobite. [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Removal and request for citations Fred Bauder 17:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 3

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. [9]:

It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough afghani cite 1 territory to a port thats none to far away, and thier objections was the cause of the invasion and destruction of the government there. Iraq, having the second largest prooven oil reserves beneath it,cite 2 also makes a juicey target for the Bush, becasue he does come from a family of oil tycoons, economics being thier true true motive in both of these attackscite 3cite 4. This is supported by the simple fact that there never were any weapons of mass destruction of either chemical, nuclear nor biological nature in Iraqcite 5.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. This paragraph needs considerable copyediting. Additionally it was not Bush but an oil company that wanted a pipeline. Fred Bauder 19:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 4

The sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It turns out that the pipeline was through Afghanistan. The second source documents expanded opportunities in Iraq for US and UK oil companies. The third source looks at the situation from a monetary perspective. The fourth in terms of oil prices. The fifth concerns the failure to find WMDs These sources more or less support the material GS advanced. Fred Bauder 18:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 5

I revert Gabrielsimon and indicate in my edit summary that this ought to be discussed on the talk page. [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. See bottom of Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#Bush.27s_war_is_based_on_his_faith. Note comment at bottom regarding spelling and grammar. Fred Bauder 19:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. This had followed an edit war over this addition by GS:

It would seem that Bush's War in Iraq is based on his faith as well, for he said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." 1

The problem with this paragraph is that the quote is second-hand. Fred Bauder 19:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 6

Rhobite explains why he thinks the paragraph is POV and unsuitable for the article. [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Rhobite's comment is sensible. Beyond the issues of phrasing and sources is the question of whether the information fits appropriately in this article, which after all is about George W. Bush, not the Iraq War. Fred Bauder 13:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 7

Fuzheado adds a protection notice to the page, but due to a bug or some other oversight, the page is not truly protected. [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 8

I explain my problem with the paragraph: it is supported by highly biased sources. I include a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources in the hopes that Gabrielsimon will take the time to read it and improve his citations. [18]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Yes, some of the sources obviously have an agenda. However, no matter how good the sources are the question remains of how much detailed information belongs in this article. Fred Bauder 13:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 9

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a second time, this time with four more dubious sources. [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. GS is doing what you asked, supplying the best sources he can find. Fred Bauder 13:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 10

The sources: [20] (no longer online) [21] [22] [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The sources express strong anti-Bush points of view. Fred Bauder 11:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 11

Fuzheado reverts Gabrielsimon. [24]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] 12

Gabrielsimon says that he has added more citations to the paragraph. [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Yes, he's doing what was asked, but may be confusing opinion for fact. Fred Bauder 11:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 13

Fuzheado announces on the talk page that the article is now protected. The protection has actually failed to occur. [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 14

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a third time. He has now violated the 3RR. [27]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. GS feels that now he supplied sources he should not be reverted if someone has consulted the sources. Fred Bauder 11:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 15

Fuzheado laments his inability to properly protect the page, and mulls blocking Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 16

Gabrielsimon demands that his edits remain in the article while a discussion as to their suitability is ongoing. He implies that those of us that are reverting his edits are not following proper procedure and calls us "jerks." [29]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. GS feels aggrieved, as most energy seems to be going into reverting rather than discussing. Fred Bauder 11:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 17

Gabrielsimon states that he has reverted three separate sections of text, and that he has not broken the 3RR. This goes against the spirit of the 3RR, as Gabrielsimon has only made minor changes to the paragraph he wishes to insert into the article. [30]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 18

I explain why I'd like to discuss the edits on the talk page before they go into the article. [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. A reasonable explanation which invites dialogue. Fred Bauder 11:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. After all the crap i went through to try and get people to pay attemtion, by the point thatthis edit came through i had lost all interestt in discussion with people who didnt seem to read, only to revert.Gavin the Chosen 00:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 19

I tell Gabrielsimon that the new citations he has added all come from biased editorials, a fact he has either chosen to ignore or does not believe affects the suitability of the paragraph for the article. [32]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Yes, opinion pieces. Fred Bauder 12:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 20

Cyrius blocks Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [33]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by Solipsist

I suspect the issues here may be much wider than are currently being discussed. What concerns me about Gabrielsimon, is that he has been editing for over five months and there has been a continuous trail of disruption following him for most of that time.

I had thought that Gabrielsimon was simply a rather enthusiasic editor who got in to trouble as a result of his somewhat eccentric views on fantasy and mythology related subjects. This would tend to lead to revert wars, and acqusations of mistreatment to anyone who would listen. However, from this RfAr, I can see the same issues extend to other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Eccentricity , you say... well, i supposethat untilyou see what ive seen, im going to seem like a nutcaseGavin the Chosen 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 9 July 2005

Gabrielsimon has had a long running dispute with User:DreamGuy, which lead to an RFC against DreamGuy in July. Initially the RfC was quite chaotic, but once evidence was presented it became clear that DreamGuy had indeed engaged in personal attacks. However it also became clear that Gabrielsimon, User:Dbraceyrules and others had been organising a campaign against DreamGuy since at least April.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. See [34] Fred Bauder 12:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Read the entire discussion, i never said anything about actually doing anything.Gabrielsimon 06:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 29 July 2005

Shortly after this the RfC became moot and Gabrielsimon and Dbraceyrules make consiliatory gestures

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

DreamGy refused to acknowledge either, and treats both users incivilliyGabrielsimon 06:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 30 July 2005

However almost immediately a further dispute breaks out at Talk:Otherkin

  • 22:29, 30 July 2005
    • Gabrielsimon had already been in discussion with User:Vashti on the Otherkin page, but this diff marks Gabrielsimon's responce to DreamGuy becoming involved.
Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. He seems to just be asking for a clarification. Fred Bauder 13:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
once again, DrteamGuys insulting incivillity and refusal to accept the fact that he is wrong doenst help anything, noty to mention false claims and POV pushingGabrielsimon 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 30 July 2005

and a worse disupte and revert war escalates on Vampire

There were also various calls for blocking based on the 3RR rule, such as WP:AN/3RR#User:DreamGuy. In fact SlimVirgin did briefly block DreamGuy on this issue, but removed the block shortly after.

What is most troubling about the spat on Vampire, is that it turns out that User:Existentializer who appears to have initiated the dispute was actually a sockpuppet. As were the edits by User:Ni-ju-Ichi and various anons. I wouldn't like to disentangle who's sockpuppets these were (perhaps someone can figure it out). However, the general pattern is DreamGuy reverting against a group of sockpuppets and Gabrielsimon.

I can interpret the events in one of two ways;

  • 1) Gabrielsimon sees another dispute starting with DreamGuy and given their past history decides to join in, escalating the problem instead of diffusing it
  • 2) it could be interpreted as an orchestrated attack against DreamGuy, with Gabrielsimon as one of the protagonists.

Either way, Gabrielsimon's involvement is far from constructive. I expect there is an awful lot more pro and counter evidence going on on various talk pages. -- Solipsist 14:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. EreamGuy is damaging this community by continuing his campaign of POV pushing and incivllity, hes driven morethen one user away from topics in disgust.Gabrielsimon 06:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. I think it would be a good idea to consider a ban on editing certain articles that seem to cause GS the most problems. Vampire would be one given it's history, including today. I suspect at least Otherkin and George W. Bush would be others. Wikibofh 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • You (arbitrators) have more experience than I do on this. If you say it wouldn't do any good, I believe you. Wikibofh 20:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Agreed on the need for a long ban on editing articles on the occult after Gabe gets back. This could be extended, if necessary, to US politics, wolf hunting, or what have you. ~~ N (t/c) 17:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. In fact, given the recent trouble and 3RR violation on Vampire (does he never learn?), I strongly suggest a preliminary injunction ASAP. ~~ N (t/c) 17:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. A long term ban on certain topics is only appropriate for editors whose passion for that particlular topic impares their good judgement. I see no reason to think that it would help here. A ban on occult, politics, wolf hunting and anything else he is interested in amounts to a ban from Wikipedia.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 18:10, August 15, 2005
Comment by parties:

[edit] 7 August 2005

As will be evident from the associated discussion here and other evidence presented below, there are a number of sockpuppet accounts that are relevant to Gabrielsimon's editing. Most recently User:Gavin_the_Chosen - a more or less selfconfessed puppet account.

  • 08:01, 7 August 2005
  • 10:13, 7 August 2005
    • Some of his first edits are to Canadian residential school system, with additions about forced schooling of Native American children. Gabrielsimon's first edits, 23:37, 8 March 2005, were similar. This may be an attempt to build credibility (Gabrielsimon has pointed to those early edits as some of his best work), or it may be a pet project.
  • We can skip over the rather bizarre and disruptive Fnord campaign that occupies Gavin_the_Chosen's editing for the rest of that day.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. (I assume this section is meant for me to comment in.) Regarding the fnording, Gabriel claims he wasn't aware it was against the rules: [35]. I find this quite surprising. ~~ N (t/c) 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8 August 2005

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. No good dragging an innocent third party in. I think what we have, looked at as a whole, is childish behavior. Fred Bauder 12:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. At the time i hadthought it might help in trying to maintain " cover" because the days before were relaxing, whilethe wkekes andm onths as my old name waas quite ztressfull. not the best plan, but well, i was uninspired.Gavin the Chosen 00:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 9 August 2005

  • 00:20, 9 August 2005
    • Voice of All(MTG) tells Gavin_the_Chosen that he has examined the evidence and believes that he is indeed a sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon.
  • 11:24, 9 August 2005
    • Gavin_the_Chosen appologises to Voice of All(MTG) for the deception.

This is significant, not just for the dishonesty and disruption, but because it shows that Gabrielsimon had no intention of sticking to the self-imposed ban he proposes above (23:55, 5 August 2005), but rather thought he might start again with a clean slate and side step any ban.

In a similar vein, one outcome of Gabrielsimon's recent RFC was a voluntary agreement to abide by a one revert rule. That lasted less than three days - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#No_1RR_anymore.3F, and 23:38, 31 July 2005. In fact, the following day on the 1st August, he was blocked for being back up to the 3RR (Gabrielsimon's block log), which was autoblocked for a further 24hrs due to anonymous editing from the same IP 14:34, 2 August 2005. -- Solipsist 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. see whats written above. als, the voluntairy " vacation" was never adcepted.Gavin the Chosen 00:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

In recent days, I've reluctantly concluded that the situation with Gabriel isn't going to work. He either can't or won't control his behavior, and as a result has been blocked 20 times since April 24 (15 times in July and August), mostly for 3RR. [36] [37] [38] For each block, there have been many other occasions where he's reverted a lot but stopped short of 3RR, or else violated it but wasn't blocked for it. Most of what he does is revert; when he edits, his contributions are usually unsourced personal opinions which have to be deleted or rewritten. This puts a strain on the editors who deal with him and causes tempers to flare, leading to personal attacks.

I reached an agreement with Gabriel on August 7 that I'd unblock his IP address (after I'd blocked one of his sockpuppets) on condition that there be no more 3RR violations, personal attacks, or any form of disruption, or else he might be blocked indefinitely. The only reason I haven't blocked him indefinitely is that other editors asked me not to and he's before the arbitration committee, so I've been trying to manage him since then with 24- or 48-hour blocks.

To give the most recent example of his behavior: he believes that Jesus shouldn't be included in List of people who have said that they are gods and has deleted the Jesus section 10 times between August 19–29. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] On August 26, he was approached by several editors, including Theresa and myself, about his frequent deletions of it. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Although he knew we were watching his edits, he continued to revert, violated 3RR, and was blocked, [54] followed by his usual excuse that he didn't realize it was four times, and anyway it was the fault of others for reverting him. [55]

His second edit on August 28 when the block was over [56] was to remove Jesus again with the edit summary "see talk... this will take me a few minutes to type on the talk page ,so please, no revreting till ive put what i wantto say" [57] but he didn't post anything to talk until nearly three hours later, and even then it was just a brief comment repeating what he'd said before. [58]

I left a note on his talk page warning that if he deleted Jesus again, I'd regard it as disruption. [59] He saw the warning [60] but deleted Jesus a few hours later. [61] I therefore blocked him for 48 hours for disruption, which was followed by posts and e-mails from him once more suggesting the problem lay with other people's failure to read his posts or edit summaries correctly, [62] [63] and that he is "the one who tries very hard to get things done around here, and doesnt EVER seem to be even remotely apprecaited for [his] attempts." [64]

On August 26, while his reverting at List of people who have said that they are gods was going on, he was also reverting three times at George W. Bush, [65] where he wanted to claim that Bush's responses to 9/11 site workers were "a pre-arranged cue, executed by agents of the President and designed to allow him to recite a punchy and inspiring script for the television cameras," (a previous editor's words), with no source, but with the reasoning: "really now, would you put it past opportunistic polititians? [66]

As I see it, Gabriel doesn't understand NPOV or the need for sources, often can't control his tendency to make personal attacks, finds it difficult to make edits that don't have to be extensively copy edited by others, and can't edit in accordance with the 3RR rule. I don't see any of this changing. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


Call me an naive but I'd like to give him a final chance to reform. I think admins need extra powers to deal with him because the 3RR powers are not enough in this case. I've proposed a much more severe revert limit for him, which i feel (if passed) may aid admins in their quest to teach him that revert warring is not for him. The not understanding NPOV or the need for sources is much more difficult to deal with though. I don't have any ideas at the moment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Naive". You're welcome...just one of the many services I provide.  :) Wikibofh 16:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Given the history, reform seems extremely unlikely. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with this kind of thing, but I'd like to suggest that Gavin agree not to revert at all for a period of time. It seems to me that his main problem is a lack of self-control, and so it may be easier for him to remember that he must not revert, and must instead trust other editors to deal with poor edits. Gavin's history indicates to me that he may have real difficulty trying to track how many reverts he has made, especially if he has to track the number of reverts on each page he edits, and which pages he has reverted, and so on. An 0RR seems like something that would be much easier for Gavin to handle. Vashti 15:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support this... given his record, if he's reverted ONCE, he should have to discuss it extensively before reverting back at all. ~~ N (t/c) 15:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for any of these convoluted remedies. Gabriel isn't mature enough to keep his commitments. He has repeatedly promised us the moon only to carry on the following day as though nothing had happened. I fail to understand why the arbitration committee expects the community to continue to put up with Gabriel, given that so many of us have bent over backwards to work with him, and yet he neither follows community norms nor contributes anything of value. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Quite frankly, I am disturbed at how much leeway he still gets. I appreciate the patience and effort of those attempting mediation and mentorship, but it should have been clear long ago that GS either does not understand what is wrong with his behavior, or simply does not want to reform. Either way, this leads to a poisonous atmosphere on any article on which he decides to start a revert war. This is damaging to the development of quality articles and wastes many editors' valuable time. How many more "second" chances does he get? android79 16:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is not working, and enough is enough. He began as an annoyance, he has grown to be a nuisance, and is rapidly approaching a cancer. We can no longer feel sorry for his disabilities. We can no longer feel sympathy for his immaturity. We can no longer harbor hope that he will improve. We have given him enough rope, and all he wants to do is hang himself. We can no longer, in good conscience, waste any more time or energy on him. This needs to come to an end. I'd almost suggest an indefinite ban, but since I'm a softie, I'll just suggest a year, for him to grow up, if that is at all possible. But he won't. And we'll just have extend it again when he returns. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, Khaosworks, but I feel bad about the whole thing, and so I'm thinking there might be a benefit in offering to tutor Gabriel for a couple of days. Not a mentoring situation (Ed has offered to do this and I don't want to interfere), but actually going to a few articles and showing him how to make edits that have a chance of sticking. This would at least have the benefit of determining whether he's able and willing to learn. I've made the offer to him by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, good luck. Maybe I am too cynical. Assume good faith is a good guideline, but not necessarily one you should stick to if the evidence persistently contradicts it. I find it somewhat disturbing that even after the initiation of this arbitration, Gabriel's antics have escalated dramatically in the last month - not just in the severity of his misdemeanours, such as the use of sockpuppets, but also in increasing the range of articles he is willing to make disruptive edits to, most particularly going after a controversial page like the George W. Bush article. Many young enthusiastic editors might dive in and make ill-judged edits, but most would at least back off a little when questioned, warned and mentored. However Gabriel does the opposite. He also has quite a history of finding someone else to turn to, to give him 'one last chance'. -- Solipsist 09:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I made the offer but it so far hasn't been accepted, and I see the arbcom seems to have reached a decision, so it's probably a moot point now. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Not that it matters much, but GS has been disrupting George W. Bush off and on for some time now – indeed, that's where I first encountered him, and where the evidence I provided comes from. Your general point about increased disruptive activity since this RFAr started still holds, of course. android79 12:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

If he is editing George W. Bush what name or ip is he using? Fred Bauder 13:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"without discussion" really? try actually readingthe tak page.Gavin the Chosen 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

the way it was explained to work is as follows - make the change, then explain it. so i did. i dont see what reason you have to complain, andriod.Gavin the Chosen 13:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • As I said, I only saw the revert, and not the discussion – I made the above comment between those two actions of yours. Given the contentious nature of the change, I would have preferred discussion before reversion, and you've reverted more than once. android79 13:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

ill keep that in mind.Gavin the Chosen 13:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)