Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log) has changed his username to Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs · block log).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

[edit] Description

Gabrielsimon systematically alters articles with content that reflects his personal opinions and beliefs, often of a controversial nature, without regard for the Neutral point of view policy, stating them as fact. When those comments (often uncalled-for, disruptive of the flow of text, and badly phrased) are deleted by other editors, he complains of abuse and reverts the deletion. He has been blocked several times for violating the three revert rule, and has reacted by accusing the administrators and other editors of abuse. He has also resisted the Votes for deletion policy, removed a VfD tag, and refused to acknowledge other Wikipedia policies.

It should be noted that the evidence detailed below was gathered from the user's contributions going back no more than approximately a week. The matter was discussed with the user and suggestions were made to him about policy and conduct. Immediately after that the user resumed his behavior (by the time he is already blocked again for 3RR violation). --Pablo D. Flores 13:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Repeated alteration/reverting with non-neutral POV or "original research": [1], [2], [3]; [4], [5], [6]; [7], [8], [9], [10] and too many others to list. 21 July
  2. Repeated alteration/reverting: [11], [12] (editor offered explanation, [13]; user accused of censorship, probably violating good faith assumption policy) 21 July
  3. Repeated alteration/reverting ignoring Capitalization policy and comments to that effect: [14], [15], [16] 21 July
  4. Personal POV: [17], [18], [19], [20] 21 July
  5. Vandalic out-of-context POV comment: [21] 21 July
  6. "Baiting" another editor: [22], [23], [24] 21 July
  7. Removing a VfD notice: [25], [26] 21 July
  8. Violating VfD consensus, misleading comments about VfD policy, baiting: [27], [28], [29] 21 July
  9. Blanking: [30] 21 July
  10. Repeated alteration/reverting without proper discussion in talk page, violating 3RR, after being warned of this RfC: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] 21 July
  11. Revert fighting, short of violating 3RR, without proper discussion on talk page, after creation of this RFC: [38],[39],[40] 23 July
  12. Removal of links to this RFC page from article talk pages: [41],[42] 23 July
  13. Multiple instances of removal of an RFC on an article which he did not want attention drawn to: [43],[44],[45] 27 July
  14. Rude comments to another editor about the above RfC (and ignoring consensus of editors on talk page that there is an issue worth discussing): [46] 27 July
  15. Removing the disputed/original research tag on the same article against consensus, with rude comments: [47] 27 July
  16. Blanking another editor's comments (and a rude reply he had made to those comments): [48],[49] 27 July
  17. Removing part of the evidence section of this very RFC: [50] 27 July
  18. More removal of other editor's comments on the RfC talk page: [51] 31 July
  19. Removal of two other editors' comments on a talk page belonging to one of those two editors (not bothering to list his removals of other editors' comments on his own talk page, which happens frequently): [52] 1 Aug
  20. Violating the 3RR on an article in less than 2 hours... during a time when he had agreed as a result of this RfC to only revert once a day: [53], [54], [55], [56] & [57] 1 Aug
  21. Removing evidence from this RFC, again: [58], [59] 1 Aug
  22. Adding the speedy delete tag to this RFC: [60] 1 Aug
  23. Deleting the report about his 3RR violation off the Administrator's noticeboard multiple times: [61], [62], [63] 1 Aug
  24. Trying to put protect tags on articles to keep them the way he wants them: [64], [65], [66] 3 Aug
  25. Still removing other editor's comments from this RfC's talk page: [67] 3 Aug
  26. Violating the 3RR policy yet again starting almost immediately after returning from his block for the last one, still while he had agreed to only one revert per article per 24 hours (his latest trick is to try to spread changes through multiple consecutive edits to try to throw people off, per his unsuccessful attempt to get out of the last one): [68] & [69], then [70] & [71] & [72], then [73] & [74], then [75], and then [76] 3 Aug
  27. Removing another editor's comments from the talk page of an article out of spite (and he admits it even): [77], [78] 4 Aug
  28. Once more removing evidence from this RfC: [79] 4 Aug
  29. Waging revert war edits on this Request for Comment page 4 Aug was the most prolonged example
  30. Very uncivil language toward other editors: [80], [81], [82] , [83] Various recent dates
  31. Purposefully modifying another editor's comments on a talk page to break a wikilink to a policy that proved his actions wrong so he could claim that he didn't see any evidence showing he was wrong: [84] 31 July
  32. Removing other editor's comments on a VfD, multiple times: [85] , [86] , [87] 6 Aug
  33. Deleting evidence from an RFC, yet again: [88] 6 Aug
  34. Has now moved on to deleting evidence against him in his RfAr: [89], [90], [91] 6 Aug

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:No original research
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  4. Wikipedia:Capitalization
  5. Wikipedia:Deletion policy
  6. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  7. Wikipedia:Clueless newbies
  8. Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User's talk page with discussions
  2. More discussion: [92]
  3. Discussion on Talk:Vampire: [93], [94]
  4. Others: [95], [96]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Pablo D. Flores 13:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Friday 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - I've come to believe he means well. However, he's either unwilling or unable to follow policies and guidelines, and thus often draws the ire of other editors.
  3. Chairboy 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. DreamGuy 19:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Golbez 15:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC) - I've been in similar conflicts with him on United States, but I have not been involved in these particular battles.
  2. Parker Whittle 18:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - I'm having similar troubles with him on Witchcraft.
  3. Craigkbryant 20:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)I find his edits consistently degrade the quality of Wikipedia as a factual reference and violate standards with respect to point of view and original research. I have found him unwilling to back up his assertions with actual citations and references when challenged.
  4. Rhobite 21:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC) Gabrielsimon seems like a well-meaning editor but he does cause a lot of trouble adding POV to controversial articles. Gabriel, I think the best solution is for you to stop editing controversial articles and spend some time thinking about why Wikipedia's NPOV policy prevents us from making value judgments.
  5. Nickptar 00:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC) - I had run-ins with GS on United States and Vampire lifestyle. He seems well-intentioned, but to have poor restraint regarding reversions and POV-pushing, and a nasty habit of not citing sources. His non-controversial, good contributions are overshadowed by his doings noted here.
  6. Haikupoet 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC) -- I honestly think that he thinks he's presenting facts, and I also believe that he doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion. He's been talked to and continues to push POV, despite being told otherwise.
  7. grubber 09:38, 2005 July 22 (UTC) - I've watched Gabriel for a month now and even tried talking with him on his talk page. Most of my comments on his talk pages (ie, the one about his 7+ 3RR violations) have been removed, so it is clear he does not want anyone's advice.
  8. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 15:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC) — I've had one run-in with Gabrielsimon, on George W. Bush, where he initiated a revert war about a conspiracy theory he wanted to add to the article: [97], which ended up causing the article to be protected for a short time and for him to be blocked. From the ensuing discussion, it became clear that Gabrielsimon either does not understand or does not accept Wikipedia's NPOV policy, believes he can cite editorials and other dubious sources as fact, and believes his opinions are facts.
  9. I had some edit conflicts with Gabrielsimon and I am sorry to see he has not improved since then. This is characteristic of the behavior he had when he was brand new, and I am appalled to see that it continues. I think a mentorship may be in order.--Tznkai 00:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    See below, I strongly agree regarding mentorship. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. I had the same experience with mass deletions of material he did not agree with (without discussion first) on Prophecies of Joseph Smith. He seems unwilling to follow the principle of collaboration and consensus. --MrWhipple 03:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Really, violating WP:3RR once, or even twice might be defensibile. But violating it at least SEVEN TIMES since April 23rd? I have little faith in reform. I would vote for at least a ONE revert probation. Wikibofh 05:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC) he may mean well, but seems incapable of grasping the most basic principles of Wikipedia. A typical case of somebody who would profit more from reading than from editing.
  13. Robert McClenon 13:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC) See my view below for details.
  14. Regardless of how much advice and counsel he gets, Gabe refuses to change. WIKI is not the place for Gabe right now in his life. Storm Rider 16:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  15. Gabrielsimon also summarily deletes comments of anon users - see User:205.188.116.14 where he deleted my comments on the talk page 7 times without comment. I realize that Anon edits on wikipedia are accorded second class status since most vandals are anonymous - but to delete relevant comments on a talk page is not the wikiway. Although his behavior has improved it is still confrontational, dismissive and Deletory of any arguments that he either can not comprehend or does not agree with. User:205.188.116.14 10:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Simon may have good intentions, but he has been creating more heat than light for months here. We welcome contributions from anyone, but at the present time Simon is not a net benefit to the project. I, too, have experienced his duplicity in marking major edits as minor and leaving no summary, reverting edits by others who have made multiple changes, and then later admitting he only disagreed with one change. And not least, he should be required to use a spell-checker. We all make mistakes, but Simon's are so frequent as to need fix-ups for nearly every edit he does. --Blainster 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Gabriel means well, I'm sure, but he causes far more heat than light, and sadly is a hindrance to the pages he works on. Vashti 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. His edits have created a problem. He is often unwilling to discuss. Nereocystis 17:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Much as others have said, Gabriel believes he's doing the right thing but in the process he's vigorously pushing some fairly odd POVs. Good intentions only go so far to ameliorating that. Bryan 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Hipocrite 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I also believe that he means well, but something's stopping him from chaning his behavior to work with disagreement.

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. {Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I would like to requet that in any case of 3rr violation invilving DreamGuy, that other editors look at his edit summaries for rude, or inmsulting edit summaries, that constitutes baiting, and it happens more hten a few times. in fact, on my momst recent block, he DID bait me, and used my block to try to claim consensus on issues he knew he had none on.

as for the most recent block which apparently triggered this posting, it was nto a " resumption of behaviour" as it was awssumed to be by this pages poster, it was in fact of an entirly differnt nature, but i dont supposes you were goingto bother to actaully read the conversations about it, hrmm? Gabrielsimon 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

as for the blanking allegation, please look at hte next avaliable place in the edit histroy. that being [98]. Gabrielsimon 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

as for "misleading comments" it is plain to see if you examine the eit histories of al lthe articles in question about missing sun motif and or myth that i am not incorrect that the page renaming as done without consensus, i was my belief that to undo that would be justified, Gabrielsimon 14:41, 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)

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)

as for nine and ten, it was simply that the other editor refusedto supply adqquate proof, and seems to have reverted out of some long held spite. Gabrielsimon 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

as for 11, 12, 13, i had put a lot ofeffort into typingthose out, and the explaination seemed rather weak. Gabrielsimon 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

17 through twenty, typos aside, this was the truth of the matter, and not MY truth, simply The truth, i care not for people whj ike to tone down the truth and use paltry excuses. i might admit that the wording as a bit harsh, but it is not unjust. Gabrielsimon 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

21 is not a vanadlaistic comment, it is, again, simply the truth put too harshly for people who are, as has been said, of a different POV. Gabrielsimon 14:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ther is no "baiting" and the discussions invilving septembe 11 attacks page is found on my talk page. Gabrielsimon 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

all in all this seems poorly constructed evidance to me, but thats just me. Gabrielsimon 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[moving his comment from evidence section to here, regarding removing of someone else's comment] - it was unsinged, so i removed it. sue me. proof? here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Therianthropy&diff=20245935&oldid=20245818 Gabrielsimon 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

{Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

  1. Gabrielsimon 15:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


as for friday's latest two additions, his afdition of the RFC link.. the motive therof, was questionable... doubious,... its like he was trying to use it to sway an argument.Gabrielsimon 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

as for the other thing thathe just posted, he should mind his own business, and stop following me around ,searching for things i do wrong. its getting annoying. Gabrielsimon 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

as for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otherkin&diff=prev&oldid=19680298 that one, DreamGuy's just antzy becasue EVERYTHING i say is rude, as far as hes concerned (sigh) its my contention that the otherkin article should be treeated specially, and im in the process of trying to convince others of that in otherp leaces...Gabrielsimon 07:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


anyway, i cant really think that DreamGuy can be relied upon for what is and what isnt rude, considering that a good deal of this edits ARE quite rude, and yet he seems not to notice that. ill not stoop to mudlisning, but they are there if you look. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


80 - i was getting really frustrated, becaseu of my repeatedattempts to ask people to give me some spafe so i wcould try to start again only met with DreamGuy's annoying comments. 81 - after moneths of his constant incivillity my patiemnce with hiom is at an end., so i begion to become as disrespectfull to him as he is to me. 82 - after moneths of his constant incivillity my patiemnce with hiom is at an end., so i begion to become as disrespectfull to him as he is to me. 83 - rediculus, hes the one who posted the broken link, i called him on it, and hetried to change it to look like hed done nothing wrong, so i changed it back, hes reaslly just whining about his own mistakes, and holing on to his vendetta


84 - i deleted accusations of sock puy[pp[erty, that hes making ponly becaue i made some about him, i will contunie to defend users , bewcasue the last one wejnt aqwaty after he and others rudly treated him like dirt on account of me.

85 - im trying tpo prevent DreamGuy from driving away ANOTHER newbie, if he dont like it, maybe he should shove his face into an active volcano Gabrielsimon 03:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view 1

Very odd. If I didn't know better, I'd swear there was a language barrier partly at work here, given some of the edits that Gabrielsimon has attempted to make. His edits to the vampire article seem to be written as if from the point of view of someone who is or knows a vampire, which qualifies as, well, odd. His edits to the wolf article reflects a passion for wolves, but he needs to learn how to maintain that passion and not turn wikipedia into a POV advocacy article against wolf-hunting. No matter how horrific a topic, wikipedia must maintain enough distance to report facts, not advocate a cause. His edits to change references to the 9-11 "terrorists" to "militants" also indicates his point of view, one I find no sympathy for. As for "capitalization" and other such reverts, I myself am not clear on the wikipedia rules, nor is it clear whether such rules were pointed out by anyone in a non-confrontational manner early on in this whole thing. Evidence of "baiting" does seem to be a bit of a stretch, but having no history with the entire talk page, perhaps the diffs provided do not show the true context or perhaps not. He clearly broke some wikipedia policies, such as NPOV. And he clearly can make a great contribution to wikipedia if he can learn to remain true to his beliefs while editing within wikipedia policies. Whether he does that is up to him. FuelWagon 22:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Derktar 00:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC).
  2. I largely agree, he has great potential as an editor, but needs to respect our basic rules. I think some knowledgable editors need to take him under their wing, w his acceptance that their judgement is to be respected, and their advice trusted. A great test case for integrating editors. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. He just needs to take it easy. — David Remahl 12:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Outside view

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 [[99]]. 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)

Note: The argument is not that Gabrielsimon's number of edits warrants his NPOV and 3RR violations, and I apologize if I have not clarified that enough. The argument is simply a compromise: Gabrielsimon should adhere to the demands of the editors, and cease his additions of dubious content in the encyclopedia: if he does not, he should suffer the consequences (i.e. an extremely long block, or restrictions of privileges). However, I have also stated that the other users need not bash him anymore, i.e. to imply that all of his edits are of no value, and that Gabrielsimon does not have potential in this encyclopedia. I don't think this argument is that far fetched than any of the others. I am not saying that Gabriel is right, but I can't say his detractors who find nothing of value in this editor are 100% right either. Give him another chance, I sincerely hope that these RfC's and RfA's bring a change in his edits. If not, he can only suffer the consequences. I think that is only fair. It is hard to doubt that many of these editors have so much preeminent dislike of this user's edits that they may be overly brash toward him. Dbraceyrules 01:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

I have been watching and occasionally dealing with Gabrielsimon for the last month or so, and I must say the experience has been alternately fascinating and frustrating... with a slant towards the latter. Gabriel seems to have a difficulty understanding Wikipedia policy, and not only that, has a penchant for misinterpreting policy. He also has unusual sensitivity when it comes to people criticizing his edits; it is perhaps unfortunate that he has also come up against one or two editors who are less than tactful in criticising those edits. Taking it personally (on either side) makes positions harden impossible to negotiate, so naturally the name calling and the edit wars escalate accordingly. I have talked to Gabriel, I have tried to reason with him, and occasionally for a time I see a glimmer of hope as he actually gets what I am trying to say, and even improves for a while. But then he undoes all the hope I have placed in him by reverting to type.

Despite all this, I do not think he is unteachable, but the longer he continues editing in this way, the more inevitable a permanent ban becomes. Gabriel needs to learn to take a chill pill, understand what his edits are being criticised for and address those issues in an objective, non-confrontational way, and above all, try not to be baited. I honestly do not know how this can be done - change, as they say, has to come from within. Gabriel says he needs time to change, and that he is trying to. If I assume that he is sincere, perhaps what he needs is a Wikiholiday, to voluntarily stop editing for a month (or however long it takes), reflect, get away from the interpersonal conflicts that have plagued his time here so far, allow parties to cool down, and then come back with hopefully, a fresh start. I would urge Gabriel to accept this advice before the holiday becomes involuntary. --khaosworks 02:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Gabriel's latest additions to this RfC's talk page merely reinforces my opinion that he desperately needs a break. --02:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

Like most other people, I personally feel that gabrielsimon's edits have been in reasonably good faith throughout my dealings with him. However, that is not to state that they have been in any way appropriate. Indeed, reading the evidence list, I wondered if articles such as Vampire lifestyle were included in there as he has been doing the same things in that case as those listed. I did not attempt to determine whether or not the 3RR was breached during the course of this argument, however it is distinctly possible as he reverted edits made by me or anyobdy consistantly for a period nearing a week. He also blanked comments from talkpages despite having been told fairly numerous times not to do so.

In other words, while this behavior is usually a misunderstanding of the rules, it appears to me that this is a special case. The violations have clearly been going on for some lengthy period of time: our interaction was several months ago and I believe there have been incidents before that still. Though behaviour can be changed, there has been ample opportunity to do that and many people have provided very clear advice in good faith; however it has unfortunately been more or less ignored at every turn. Unless we are to see a very dramatic change in editing patterns over the next few weeks I would strongly suggest that decisive action be taken: while he is disputing endlessly with editors no productive editing is being done at all because it cannot be. Further, every ciritcism of these editing practices is rebuked with allegations of personal bias, and the user seems to have moved on to abusing administrative tags such as "protected" recently, causing a page to be protected even as of a few hours ago (as of this writing).

This behaviour, in my opinion, demonstrates clearly both an inability to reform behaviour (or understand the necessity for that reform) and a significant breach of the trust inherent in a wiki structure. Further, the editor has still failed to desist long after the introduction of this RfC. If you do not realise the seriousness of the situation even after an RfC has been raised, when will you? I therefore and most regrettably propose that the outcome of this RfC be the most severe possible.

Falcon 08:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ouside view

I haven't been following up on this user and his edit history, but from what I've read, his spelling and grammar are horrible. How can he be allowed admin status with this in mind? It's really painful and disturbing to read his comments on talk pages, and if he edits like that all the time on articles as well, I say ban him altogether. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:20, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't have admin status, Elias. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor outside view

I finally got Gabriel to make his first NPOV edit today. It would be a shame to waste all the effort I've made, teaching him how to write neutrally.

Also, part of the problem was over-zealousness on the part of DreamGuy. He has agreed to withdraw and let SlimVirgin and me supervise Gabriel.

Finally, Gabriel has admitted to creating a sockpuppet account to get a fresh start. He will not be using the old account to evade a ban; if he does, both accounts are to be blocked at once. See the agreement at his talk page.

And this is his new account:

Signed:

  1. Uncle Ed 00:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think he can shape up. I also think I've been overzealous too and should now try to avoid further criticism. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. One more chance. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. El_C 02:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Despite lingering skepticism, let's give this a shot.--khaosworks (talk• contribs) 02:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agreed - he is young and should be given some time to mature 205.188.117.8 03:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (aka 205.188.116.14)
  7. I have strong doubts. I hope this works, but his history is full of telling people what they want to hear, agreeing to change, then going back on his word, so I am extremely skeptical. I fear that this group is being taken on a ride, and that Gabrielsimon/Gavin is manipulating everyone. That said, I'll just grab my hat and hold on and hope, like the abused housewife, that THIS time it'll be different. - Chairboy 15:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Is it too much to ask that Gabriel/Gavin make some kind of statement to indicate that he has read and is familiar with the rules concerning vandalism, reverts and any other pertinent issues? I've seen him plead ignorance on many of these issues in avoidance of potential sanctions in past episodes. Credibility is a factor. Also, I must ask if every "problem" editor is to be given the kind of patient handling that this user has. Is this a precident setting case? Please respond, I am probably not alone in my concern regarding these issues. Hamster Sandwich 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    Is it too much to ask you to converse with the user in quesion ( me) instead of ignoring me when i ask you quesions? why wuld you think that your words hold much wait with me when you show me no respect at all, mr sandwitch? as for everyone else, thansk, i apprecioate the vote of confidance.Gavin the Chosen 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. An excellent compromise. I commend Gabriel for agreeing to do it. - grubber 15:32, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  10. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. I feel (most belatedly) that this is a very reasonable solution, given that he continues to edit reasonably and improves his typography, particularly in article space. If he does not, I feel that both accounts ought to be banned or severely sanctioned. Best of luck, and I really hope this goes over well. Falcon 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

[edit] motion to close RFC

as explained on talk page

  1. Gabrielsimon 03:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)