Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Contents

[edit] Responses to Outside view 1

Moved from the project page:

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

Citing the wikipedia policy you are attempting to follow can sometimes help. I don't know if you did in this case or not, but in the future it could help you. Either way, you can't break one policy, such as NPOV, to follow another. FuelWagon 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The policy Gabriel is referrring to is Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It would take an intentional misreading of that page to conclude that the word "terrorist" is inappropriate in all cases. It's true that use of the term is often disputed, but few would argue that the 9/11 attackers were anything but terrorists. Rhobite 00:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

additional comments

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

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

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


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

[edit] Continued reverting?

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


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

[edit] Sorry, but I must protest

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


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

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


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

[edit] Observations

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

I've recently decided that he means well also. However, he's so far demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to change his editing behavior. He continues the very behaviors that lead to this RFC. He seems to believe that as long as he does not violate 3RR, it's OK to made unexplained edits against consensus. Even his multiple bans have not deterred him, so I'm not confident that anything can be done to change his behavior. Friday 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
There has been absolutely no change in his behavior despite all the people telling him that it is unacceptable. His recent actions are just as bad as they have always been. We can all sit here and speculate that he supposedly means well, yet his actions show otherwise. DreamGuy 00:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
i removed nothing, i insterted a cmoomnt to xplain somehing.  much like this one

Gabrielsimon 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] fridays overreactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you may not intend to, but what you're doing amounts to vandalism whether you understand that or not. You have been talked to and even sanctioned repeatedly and you still don't get it. You have to learn to back down. As I've said in previous comments addressed to you, some people might agree with what you say, but that doesn't make it automatically appropriate for an encyclopedia. 141.157.190.194 03:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I should sign that properly: Haikupoet 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] What's the next step?

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

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

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

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

You've done that quite effectively all by yourself, Gabriel. Haikupoet 18:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As for the next step, I don't believe we need to worry about that. There is already an RFA in place here. I'm not sure how those go exactly, but I'm sure those involved in it are quite familiar with the process. Friday 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that doesn't seem to be going anywhere (from what I can tell at a glance anyway), and only involves one other editor. It also misses many of his most recent actions to try to get around Wikipedia policy, such as erasing evidence from the RFC. DreamGuy 18:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that those on the ArbCom who've accepted the request might be keeping on eye on this RFC. In fact if I had to guess, I'd say it's likely that the happenings in this RFC may be what has caused the last couple of them to accept rather than reject. At any rate, I don't see that jumping up and down insisting something must be done is helpful. Particularly, if it appears that an editor has a strong interest in seeing someone "punished", motivations may be considered suspect. To me it looks like this RFC already speaks for itself. Friday 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I reject the characterization that I am "jumping up and down", and I never mentioned anything about "punishment." It simply has become clear that Gabrielsimon hasn't learned anything, and I for one am sick of wasting my time having to undo all the deletions and abusive edits he does on a regular basis even now after all this happened. I just want this resolved, I don't care how. This RfC clearly has not resolved it -- and in fact may have just made him even worse. I wanted to make sure that something is being done to escalate this in whatever ways are approrpriate, that's all. DreamGuy 19:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
"Without even reading it, my guess is..." Cripes. That's exactly the kind of uncivil behavior that you're being called on here. Nickptar 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] so anyway

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

Gabrielsimon 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

  • Per my comment below. Haiku, I've viewed GS to be a PITA on several occasions. In spite of that it doesn't give you license to be a jerk, which you were above. (in particular the statement "...someone thinks you need a beating with the clue bat." seems inflamatory). He's annoyed me and I'm still civil, you can be the same. Really, I have poor self control, it's not that hard to be better.  :) Wikibofh 02:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, that is so ironic coming from someone whose username ends in "bofh." ;-) android79 02:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually (as I indicated on your talk) it's even better than that. I OWN BOFH.com. The username is not merely posing.  :) Wikibofh 03:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] " if it please the court"

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

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

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

-

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to think that Gabrielsimon's post is disingenuous. User:Gabrielsimon:Gabrielsimon has consistently demonstrated a lack of regard for NPOV. In addition, his behavior during the RFC has, with clockwork precision, demonstrated beyond all reasonable standards of evidence exactly what User:Pablo-flores put forth in the initial revision. He has continued to make POV edits, he has edited other peoples comments, and has shown an almost clinical lack of understanding of what NPOV means and no interest in fixing that. If he is sincere (which I find unlikely based on his past actions) then I feel that he may be one of the most insidious threats to Wikipedia: A vandal who truly does not understand that what he is doing is vandalism. Because of this, he can repeatedly ask for 'another chance' and express absolutely honest bewilderment at the reaction others have to his edits.
I am not an admin, and I don't profess to know what the correct actions to take are, but if Gabrielsimon remains an active editor, I believe we must accept that there will need to a group of editors who go through each of his edits with a fine-tooth comb for perpetuity. Unfortunately, he has shown no compunctions about using sockpuppetry, so a ban may not solve the problem either.
In conclusion, I feel that the most viable solution for the Gabrielsimon problem is if he 1. Is taught to recognize NPOV, 2. Agrees to honestly work towards improving his behavior regarding reverts (and using Talk to gain consensus), and 3. Makes an honest effort to become a part of the community instead of a threat. If he is unwilling to commit himself to those, then WP would be forced to ban him, his IP, and budget the time needed to combat anonymous POV edits from him until such time as he loses interest in disrupting the database. The costs (both in admin time and lost contributions from Gabrielsimon going forward) of the latter are steep, so I would much prefer the 1-3 approach. In the end, Gabrielsimon will be the only person who can make that work by committing to change. - Chairboy 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I have observed Gabe for quite some period now. I have commented on his edits to his discussin page and counseled him on proper behavior. Gabe is not an idiot. He is bright, but highly opinionated. I cannot believe with the plethora of comments, counsel, directions, assistance, and advice that he does not understand how detrimental his actions are to WIKI. Through it all he sails on blindly ignoring everything that has been said to him. Pleas for "taking him under someone's wing" fall on deaf ears. Gabe, my advice is take a long haitus from WIKI. Grow up and learn to be respectful of others. Seek common ground in your life; WIKI is just not the place for you right now. Storm Rider 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielsimon keeps removing sections of this talk page

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

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

[edit] Suggestion for Resolution: 1RR

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

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

  • I think 1RR is great (you'll note I recommend it on the main page). However, I think someone (not me, I suck at that stuff), needs to step forward to be a mentor as well. Without that I think we're likely to see sporadic, but just as annoying POV inserts. GS has potential, we should try to realize that. If that doesn't work, I'd vote for a ban. Wikibofh 02:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Only doing one revert per article per day would help some, but it doesn't take care of his demonstrated lack of willingness to learn about the concepts of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV (see recent coversations on Talk:Witchcraft where he resisted the efforts of multiple editors who tried patiently several times to explain why unsourced "oral traditions" do not overrule multiple instances of cited scholarly published works), not to mention his extremely recent deletions of evidence in this RfC, deletions of RfC listings for articles he didn't want to see anyone else come in on, and comments by other editors posted on talk pages. Mentoring may help, but he needs to admit that what he is doing isn't acceptable and that he needs to try to learn the right way or all the hand holding in the world won't help. DreamGuy 00:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

[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)

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

The wikipedia history seems to disagree:
[1] "(since there arnt enough books on this subject f the " svolarly " sort, then why think that websites be cosidered origional research for this topic?)"
[2] "(explained now... lets see friday be so srict with everyone else, some time shall we?)"
[3] "(undoing hipocritical user 's change, its a prime example of his hipocracey)"
3 Reverts, and it's an original-research tag being removed each time. - Chairboy 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but 3RR is about reverting MORE than 3 times. So, he's skimming the line and not technically violating the rule. Why he's choosing to walk that line under present circumstances, I cannot fathom. He appears to be interested in following policies only when he feels that the alternative would be a ban. He's certainly not following the writers' rules of engagement. Friday 20:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I strongly recommend against that gabriel. My intent is for you to be a positive contributer, donating your valuable time and competance to the Wikipedia in a manner others respect and benefit from. Rudeness and other breaches of wikipolicy are not steps towards that goal. I urge you to use my talk page or email, or that of other experienced wikipedians, as a method of aquiring advice and support. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Per (my understanding of) RfC's this was moved from the body over to here. I did it without comment so that I could summarize my edit without it appearing to be subterfuge. GS was certainly aware of 3RR when he violated it the 6th time, on his way to the 7th. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. I think a suitable remedy would be (as proposed above) a 1RR probation for a time (~6 months) and a mentor. I would also like to comment that I think that Haiku is being a bit too rude above. I don't intend for this to be a flamewar or "piling on" as suggest in other portions of discussion. WP:Civil should still apply, even if GS has annoyed me personally. Wikibofh

[edit] More comments moved from body of RFC

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

This is a poor argument, i.e. total number of edits = beneficial contributions. When one keeps putting Bullshit into the wiki and does constant reverts, refuses to discuss and edits the same page 4-6 times in a row then it is pretty easy to get lots of edits. The problem is that Gabrielsimon has created more work for others than any benefit he may provide by, IMHO, adding esoteric details to POV's that are already well represented. -- User:205.188.116.14
I had clearly stated that I am not condoning Gabrielsimon's controversial edits. I believe Gabrielsimon desires to make positive changes in this encyclopedia but gets angry at times. This is a poor argument because this person has been accused of vandalism his/herself. I do not think that Gabrielsimon's number of edits give him the right to piss other users off. I said that there should be a compromise! You only implied what I thought. In number of edits, Gabrielsimon has tried to improve this encyclopedia in vampire and otherkin articles, although at times he may not use positive methods. The point is, Gabrielsimon obviously has good intentions - therefore, I still believe compromise is the way to go. That is what an RfC is for, right? Okay, lets compromise. Like I said before: Gabriel, stop adding controversial/bias content within the encyclopedia. Detractors, please do not bash Gabriel as I have read here before.Dbraceyrules 14:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I read your statement as an assertion that the large number of edits itself implied a beneficial contribution. Given the nature of the edits that have come up in this RFC, I can understand why one might take exception to that. I agree that "bashing", if by that you mean personal attacks, is not helpful. However, if by "bashing" you mean discussion of alleged pathological editing behavior, I believe that's the entire purpose of the RFC. Friday 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize if I was unclear about my point on the number of edits he made. I still think that a compromise should break through - and I don't think my point is very far fetched (or at least not disagreeing with the other editors). : ) Dbraceyrules 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
To further clarify my point I will post what I had left on the anon user's page:Sorry that you disagreed on my argument, however what I am saying is: Gabrielsimon has good intentions but gets angry sometimes, and therefore may add dubious/controversial stuff to Wikipedia. I don't know if you can be upset, as according to your talk page several people have detected vandalism from this IP address. In the end I just want a compromise. I don't think Gabrielsimon is right by adding his opinions in articles, but I do believe that Gabrielsimon has outstanding potential as an excellent editor on this sight. He only deserves a second chance. I don't know if you'll agree with that but I think a second chance and compromise: that is, that detractors stop bashing Gabriel, and that he avoids adding dubious content in the encyclopedia - is the best, and most kind method of resolving the dispute. Dbraceyrules 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
What I am saying is the man deserves another chance, yeah I hear the argument already that he has had multiple chances. Well, okay, hopefully the RfC will get him to respond. If not, he can just suffer the consequences. Come on, even some of the complainants on the other page said that the man had potential as an editor. Why not see him for what he is worth and allow him to put good info on the encyclopedia? Why not? Dbraceyrules 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, forget it. This isn't my battle, I tried to win it but could not. Dbraceyrules 19:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
That is the way I feel about trying to help Gabrielsimon - a sense of frustration and futility. I do appreciate your efforts with GS - I just hope his signal to noise ratio improves 100 fold - Hopefully he will respond to these comments - he is young - I am sure that he can be a positive force with some effort on his part. - User:205.188.116.14
PS - I use AOL as my browser and that results in edits from many different users on teh same IP - for example, this edit is likely much different from the IP than the 205.188.116.14 I was editing from when I first encountered GS.
  • Per (my understanding of) RfC's this was moved from the body over to here. Wikibofh 17:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I see reasons for hope

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

This is good news. I too see reason to be hopeful. Gabriel, I know we've had our disgreements, but I'm very happy you've agreed to the one revert rule. And I think your most recent editing behavior has been quite an improvement. It looks to me like you've taken to more discussion on the talk pages, and this can only be a good thing. Friday 06:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't be too certain that things are getting better. After the 1RR he agreed to on July 27, the very next day he was back to 3 reverts on the Mysticism page[5]. His actions are speaking much more loudly than his words. --Blainster 16:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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

From looking at the diffs, I see that you made two reversions. One was reverting back the removal of "S", the other was reverting back the removal of the entire word "God". In general, I think most of the time if you're repeatedly and quickly removing another editor's changes, you're violating the spirit of the one revert rule. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the rule, I'm just throwing out an opinion. Friday 21:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
No, these are clear reverts. You wanted to add (s) to the end of God, so you did it once and after being reverted by Jayjg, did so again. After a second revert by Jayjg, you decided to excise the word God once and then again after again being reverted by Jayjg. While not technically a violation of the 3RR, this is definitely a violation of the 1RR as I assumed you had agreed to follow after advice given here. Also, this is your only edit to the Mysticism talk page, which appears to have nothing to do with the reverts shown above (and indeed was added after the reverts occurred). This was not a "discussion with shown changes," it was an attempt to force your POV into the article, one way or the other. android79 21:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No 1RR anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] im really getting sick of this

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

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


[edit] getting reallly sick of the constant harrasssmenrt

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

May I ask which charges are trumped up? Nickptar 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
one example is the lastest 3rr vio charge from DreamGuy.
Gabrielsimon 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing trumped up about that charge. You said you were following a 1RR and instead you reverted a page 4 (or 5, depending on how you count the last one) times in only a few hours. You need to accept that your behavior is not acceptable or you will never improve. Claiming that they are lies and it's just someone out to get you when the charges are there in black and white and undeniable is just nonsensical. You reverted those pages. You did that. As much as you try to justify it to yourself, what you did was against the policies here, and a betrayal of your promise to use to only revert an article once a day. You need to accept that you were wrong and that you can't blame other people for it or else you will never get any better. DreamGuy 04:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

As a data point, the major incident tonight appears to be a disagreement on Otherkin - there was a brief revert war which is at the top of the history at [8], should anyone want to check it out. Vashti 03:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Gabrielsimon, I wish to respectfully disagree with the characterization you've given. If the claims against you were without merit, then they would fall apart on their own. Unfortunately, as the number of editors involved has shown, you are continuing to exhibit disruptive wikipedia tendencies that are reducing the quality of the wikipedia. There is no conspiracy against you, and the attention you are getting is entirely of your own creation. Consider, for a moment, the status of the RfC votes. Look at the number of people endorsing each statement. At what point, I ask, do you stop assuming that it's everyone else that has the problem, instead of you? Please, stop messing around with the reverts. Stop adding pov, stop being a wikilawyer when retaliating against others for perceived slights, and stop doing things that help make the case against you. - Chairboy 03:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

[edit] Still not following the 1RR agreement

You know, considering he just got back from his block for violating 3RR while he was supposed to be on a 1RR agreement, it's pretty disturbing to see him immediately back to the same old tricks. He's now had 2 or 3 reverts on Therianthropy in the last couple of hours. DreamGuy 01:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

hes just complaining because im going agsint his wishes, as usual, i was trying to inster some genuine improovments, and he reverted them without discussion, AGAIN. hes basically baiting me, trying to get me blocked again.
Gabrielsimon 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you just violated the 3RR AGAIN while you had promised to only do one revert per article every 24 hours. Your alleged "genuine improvements" included using the article itself to call people who disagreed with your POV "uninformed" and so forth. 3RR is an always a rule, and you are supposed to be a=opn a much stricter 1RR rules now, so how can you possibly justify violating 3RR at this time?
And, please, could someone else fill out the 3RR report on him...? I'm already busy undoing his vandalism elsewhere. DreamGuy 02:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

if i did commit 3rr, it was by accoident, would it be all right if i was forgiven, becasue of DreamGuy's baiting tactics and my already apologetic nature? Gabrielsimon 02:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • How does one break a rule like the 3RR by accident? If you're having that much trouble remembering how many reversions you've made on an article in a 24-hour period, you can simply check the history. I suggest you do this from now on in order to avoid any further accidents. android79 02:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

ill keep that in mind. ( my attmetionspan needs some work too, hich might be a contributing factor) Gabrielsimon 02:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

also, i dont vandalize, i consider such allegations liabolus ( or however you spell that) and its aprime example of something i reallly want to remove from the page, but im tryingto show some more maturity then false allegations like that. Gabrielsimon 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


also if people would kindly look at SlimVirgin's talk page edit history and DreamGuys, he calls everyth8ng that hedoenst like harrassment, no matter how mnnicel;y people tryto say it, thisshould be indicitve of the fact that hes rather mean spirited in his edits, and is n my opinion a carrier of the bad faith plague. Gabrielsimon 02:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What do we do now?

It's clear we have a mountain of evidence against Gabrielsimon. What is the next step? Haikupoet 04:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The next step is WP:RFAr. The requisite four votes to accept have been made by the committee, but no one's done anything with it yet. I think they've been quite busy with a couple of other cases. android79 04:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

its clear no ones raelly listening to me. the next step has alread been undertaken, please c lose this RFC. Gabrielsimon 04:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And what does trying to hide what I said prove? Haikupoet 04:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

im not trying to hide anything, this is so that the last seftion is still the last section, so that my requests for others to ee the ;last section are still to see what i wanted them to see. Gabrielsimon 04:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


which is another erson this thing has to close, its already unsderway, so why not LEave me be, huh? Gabrielsimon 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • RfCs typically serve as evidence for ArbCom proceedings. As long as you continue with the behavior disputed by the complainants here, the evidence should be catalogued here. There is no reason to close this, especially since the dispute hasn't been resolved. android79 04:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] if all would do me a favour please

i grow weary of being under a mircoscope, and i would like it very much if people would close this RFC, i have already agreed to what rational editors have asked of me and begun to imnplement this into myt behaviour, barring the vendetta holding DreamGuy's horribly constant objections, i would propose a motion to close this, but any may post comments on my talk page if they feel i am fdoing wrong. (unsigned, but by Gabrielsimon)

How does violating the 3RR rule twice in less than 3 days (well, maybe less since you were blocked for like 24+ hours in the middle of that time), putting highly abusive comments everywhere, strong POV warring to things that already have consensus, removing other editor's comments, falsely trying to use the protected tag on articles to lock them the way you want them and so forth even come CLOSE to trying to improve? You're even worse than you used to be, and you've learned absolutely nothing from this process. The fact that you happen to be attacking me most of the time and making your abusive edits specifically on article I am on is what ends up making me report these things, but note that a good portion of the evidence from Aug. 1 was placed there by other editors. DreamGuy 04:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Stop deleting other people's comments, Gabriel. This is precisely the sort of behavior that has you up for RfC in the first place. Haikupoet 04:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

you dont get to talk any more, becaeu tis partilly becaues of your incessant,ly annoying reverts, which admins see as a problem of yours,m and your baiting tactics that got me into a part of this mess, suce, i make mistakes, a lot of mistakes, but some of them wo uldnt have been had yoiu shown an aounce of civillity , tact, or respect , DreamGuy. instead you show hipocraceyu and a rather bad temper, along withthe complete inabillity to admit when your wrong. Gabrielsimon 04:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

then make that guy , whos been nothing but a thron in my side and a very annoying person leave me alone, please? he basically holds a vendetta for reason i either am unaware of or have forgtotten, and pretty muchn constistantly puts annoying comments on my talk page, and has even tried being incivil and rude to admins, lie slimvirgin, id like it vey much if people would make him leave me alone, hes driving m,e mad., Gabrielsimon 04:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


hes very abusive to almoist everyone he meets, and t he complains that i am abusibve whenm i wouldnt even speak to him if he didnt speak to me. he deletes EVERYONES comments from his tlak page and then bitches about it when others remove HIS comments from THIER pages. check his edit history, yoll see. i just wnat him to leave me alone., Gabrielsimon 04:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] me trying to follow the rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampire_fiction&diff=next&oldid=20244683

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=20244990

very tempted i am to do totherwise, but thems the breaks... Gabrielsimon 06:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

youll also notice DreamGuys attempt to bait me with insulting edit summaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampire_fiction&curid=78203&diff=20244789&oldid=20244683 Gabrielsimon 06:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] motion to close RFC

  1. Gabrielsimon 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


  1. Oppose My recent experiences with Gabrielsimon at Talk:Mysticism have been my worst yet, and I am considering providing evidence against him of it comes to arbitration. My feeling is that he requires a couple of mentors, and a 1 revert parole for awhile. Frankly, I don't see this guy needing to make more than 1 revert in a 24 hr period. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
He already agreed to the 1RR thing a week or more ago, it didn't help at all, by the way. DreamGuy 09:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Gabriel is not getting any better, in fact he's getting much worse than he used to be even. See how the incidents on the evidence list got more serious as time goes on? DreamGuy 06:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- you, reamGuy who hats me with a passion unbridled, and carries a vendetta gainst me for reasons i am either unawae of or have forgtotten, are not a fair judge of anything that has to do with me,  because of said aforementioned hatred.  do be quiet.

Gabrielsimon 09:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] agrravating cicrumstance

just askeduy whoalso liveshere,andhejust laughedat me and told mehesbeen boingm,efor a whiletimight... i apologize forany disruptiveactiity this has vasued. i have just changed,my password(sorlike athirdtime to be sure) Gabrielsimon 08:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's got to be the most lame excuse I have ever seen. You've been acting completely yourself saying your normal comments in your normal way for hours. You can't seriously expect us to believe that someone was impersonating you that well... Your comments and edit style are fairly easy to spot. Looking through your contribution history tonight shows without a dount that it was the same old you. DreamGuy 08:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

im sorry, but this is the truth, andif youdint like it, well you an justshove your facverinto an active volcanoforallicare. Gabrielsimon 08:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gabriel. Can you give us some idea of which edits you're disclaiming? Presumably you have some idea of which disputes were you and which ones weren't? Also, why hasn't there been any indication at all from you that your account might have been hacked before today? Vashti 12:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if you are going to make such claims (it does sound a tad far-fetched) you should identify exactly which edits from Special:Contributions/Gabrielsimon that you do not remember doing. — David Remahl 12:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, please do that. If he's really been editing as you, not just reading as you, I'm sure it will be easy for us to see the differences in the edits if you tell us which ones were not done by you. Friday 13:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Considering this other person's editing style and pattern was sufficiently similar to yours that I didn't notice any difference, and he seemed to know exactly where to go to fight the same fights you were in, I think I'd like to see some more evidence. Bryan 15:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, given the security issue at your current residence, perhaps it's best, to avoid any kind of bad behavior being associated with your name, that your IP be banned from Wikipedia perminantly? I'm certainly you'd endorse that, what, with a roomate able to match exactly your editing style, following you around and trying to get you in trouble! *boggle* Hipocrite 16:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I, for one, appreciate Gabrielsimon's candor regarding this terrible development. In the interest of maintaining WP integrity, I think Hipocrite has stumbled onto the only solution. With this security issue in mind, I'm certain that Gabrielsimon will have no objections whatsoever to the proposed actions. - Chairboy 16:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

when i made this one i was very tired, and dozed off shortly after. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=20246576

the next onme i made was welcoming.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexandra_Erin&diff=prev&oldid=20249603


and no i dont think benning this IP is a good idea, cause thjat would remove me. i changed my passwrod and had a rther loud discussion with my room mate. he promsed to back off... the jackass.... Gabrielsimon 19:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Please provide a list of edits made by this malicious roomate. Thanks. Hipocrite 20:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you're attempting to show with these diffs. If you make bad edits while you're tired, don't edit while you're tired. Are there any edits credited to your username that you seriously suspect were made by someone else? (As an aside, please use the various welcome templates to welcome new users if you can't be bothered to spellcheck your welcome messages.) android79 19:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

--Uh, Gabe, just what are you driving at here? First you claim that your roommate has been hacking your account. Then you give us examples of edits you made when you were tired? This is getting ridiculous. Are you claiming that your more problematic edits are a result of your roomate or of you being tired? Those are different things, you know.

Second point: I am getting frustrated with how you make excuses for poor quality in your edits, your spelling, your grammar, etc. Vision, arm pain, ADHD, fatigue--how many times do people have to tell you: THESE ARE NOT EXCUSES. It is up to YOU to take responsibility for making quality edits. If you have to spend some time on them to make them grammatically correct, then you are obliged to do so. If you can't do good work when you are tired, then you need to get some sleep and not edit the Wikipedia. If your medical problems slow you down, then you need to work at a speed that is consistent with you doing quality work that is respectful of the community and this project.

You do not have an absolute right to make 100 edits a day, no matter how sloppy and ill-advised those edits are. On the contrary--if you can only do five good edits a day...or one good edit in five days...that is the speed at which you need to work. Period. Do you have any idea how rude it is to every editor who puts time and care into their work on Wikipedia that you can't be troubled to spell-check because you have Attention Deficit Disorder? Let me give you a personal example: I am working on expansions to two articles that are of interest to me because they pertain to things in the Atlanta, Georgia area: the Georgia Guidestones and the Crypt of Civilization. I have been collecting material for these things, in a low-intensity kind of way, for about a month, and it may be a couple more months before I am ready to have a go at the articles. And there is nothing at all special about my case. Many, many people understand the time and care that Wikipedia deserves, and are willing to commit to the necessary effort. It is very disappointing that you are not.

Please stop with the excuses. You owe us all a higher standard of work.

--Craigkbryant 04:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as a POI, I think Gabriel's claim above about the being tired part isn't that he was sleepy and shouldn't be held responsible. His claim appears to be that he fell asleep at that time and that his dastardly roommate jumped on (oddly taking over the edit warring over the evidence section of this RfC, continuing preexisting personal conflicts with other editors, holding discussions with people on his talk page about events that happened earlier, and so forth), so all the edits between the two he mentioned above were supposedly not his fault because it wasn't really him.
Now of course this is a quite incredibly dubious claim (similar to the one above that he slept between reverts on Mysticism and didn't realize he violated his 1RR promise, when in fact the contribution history showed he was actually editing other pages that whole time and could not have slept -- and of course since then he was violated 3RR and totally blown the whole 1RR thing anyway). Note that he also tried to claim that the fact that this "roommate" spelled better than him was proof that it wasn't him making those edits. When it was pointed out that the "roommate" actually spelled things just as badly as he does, he instantly started spelling things much worse than normal (meaning not a single word spelled right) to try to shake people off the scent. (Of course if we to seriously entertain the idea, the "Gabriel" with the absurdly ridiculous poor spelling would be the logical one to be the fake, and then we're back to Gabriel having done all the offenses that were documented.)
While people are naturally upset at the suggestion that he thought he could dodge responsibility because he was tired, I think it's far more disturbing that he would make up a false claim that someone else took over the computer and expect us to believe it. He simply is not dealing fairly with us at all. No claim is too absurd for him to try to use to rationalize what is simply indefensible behavior here.
DreamGuy 10:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet?

I wasn't sure how to get someone to verify possible sockpuppetry by technical means. So I'll put this here. User:Ketrovin looks suspiciously like Gabrielsimon. Similiar interests, similiar editing style, and Ketrovin came in as a new user and quickly started editing some of the very same user talk pages that Gabrielsimon had been involved in. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems possible that GS is worried about his RFAr and wants to make a new account. In some cases the typos have been fewer, but this could simply be an indication of more time spent previewing. This article creation and the subsequent history look to me to be quite similiar in style to GS. Anyway, just wondered if anyone else has opinions on this. There are additional pages and diffs that indicate other surprisingly similiarities, which I can provide if wanted. Friday 18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We have something. Gabrielsimon hasn't edited anything since 9:26 UTC, and Ketrovin has edited since then. I hate to play Devil's advocate, but I think GS may be sockpuppeting. This hurts, I tried to defend him, but it seems that there is no hope. D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
We could ask a dev to compare their IPs... Maybe Ketrovin is his roommate. :P --Golbez 18:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


i saw a request for that article on Vashi's user page, so , in the interests of being nice, and becaeu that was an interesting challenge, i made it. would you like to tell me why people are so interested in me? perhaps i did something wrong in the creation of the articleSculpey as well? thus far, this community seems rather less then friendly, but i hope its some strange happenstance, instead of how things are done. Oh, and ifthis will help, i found this by followng links, just as with where i found all other places, other then the ones i created, andthe article on Son Goku so far. Ketrovin 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This IS strange. You say you've never heard of Gabrielsimon, yet you've heard of the RFC on him? You're a quick learner; I'm not sure I was even aware of the RFC process the day after I created my account. There is nobody being unfriendly against you that I am aware of. The suspicion (if there is such) is against a user completely unrelated to you, by your own admission. So I'm unclear why you're involving yourself on the RFC. Friday 18:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

to get here i followed a link from the user page of Dbraceyrules in a section titled sockpuppetry, which i learned of after reading information fof of your user page, which I learned of because you left your signature on my talk page. and becaseu I do not want trouble, I thought I would say something, but aprently even defending ones self is not advisable, so I wonder, what sould I do? Youll note, i have reaad nothing on this page except what seems to concern me. Why am I beiong looked on suspisciously for asking a single question, after reading the Article on Otherkin's edit history? This seems strange. Ketrovin 19:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, this is Gabrielsimon, look at the typing etc. I have never seen a user be able to create links, etc. on his second day on Wikipedia. Sorry, D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I copy pasted from my watchlist and i usedthe formatting from other users signings. Im on trial for being creative? Ketrovin 19:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think people are really jumping the gun on this one. While I see some minor similarities between Ketrovin and Gabrielsimon, these seem entirely circumstantial and insufficient to start accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. There are enough differences to warrant a reasonable doubt (adding comments describing changes, no revert wars, better grammar, etc.). Not the best way to welcome a new editor, IMO. Parker Whittle 19:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if the accusations are false, but note that he suddenly said "hi" on my talk page without provocation. I hope these accusations are false. D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that Ketrovin used language which reminded me of GS. A trivial thing, I know. However, looking at their user pages revealed surprising similiarities. Then I checked edit history and found that this new user signed up and very quickly went to some of the very same talk pages that had been lately frequented by GS. And, frankly, the responses here seem very similiar. I hope this is all an astounding coincidence. Friday 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll tell you what -- let's just say, for sake of argument, that it is Gabrielsimon. If so, it's a much better behaved Gabrielsimon. Even then, I would seriously recommend that people relax, take a breather, and stop looking for monsters under every bed. With the number of users on this Wiki, coincidences are going to be commonplace. Please, please, please reserve judgment until you have some actual evidence of the sort of exact misdeeds recounted on this RfC. Even when seeking preserving the integrity of the Wiki, this should be a friendly place. Parker Whittle 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that random acts of kindness are unacceptable. Is this really what you mean? Ketrovin 19:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Im Sorry, but it would seem that this user your upset with edited his talk page while i was reading about business plans. Ketrovin 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you're very good at seeing such things for a user who only started yesterday. Thanks for being vigilant for us! Unfortunately, the user this RFC is about has said he has several PC's at home, so you never know, it's possible that one person could use more than one, more or less at the same time. Friday 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You have GOT to be kidding me. The mere possibility of misdeeds is not evidence of misdeeds. Please, drop this until there is some actual evidence. Ketrovin says he's not Gabrielsimon. So far, he hasn't done any harm (even if I think some of his edits could be improved). Parker Whittle 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So , All of this points to onething, I should not greet othe ussrs out of random joy. Be that teh case, then So be it, I suppose. Ketrovin 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


If Wronbgdoing is whats to be found, then perhaps examine this... it seems hes telling me, in this conversation to stop conversing here, and then, later ( check the time stamps) He, on this page, continues to search for Damming evidance. Correct me if i am wrong, but does not this community have a policey for good faith? heres the conversation. " Sorry (header formatting removed as not to disrupt the page)

Sorry if you've interpreted my question as being unfriendly. It was not intended as such. Anyway, don't worry about any of this. It's another user's issue, not yours. Happy editing! Friday 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

All can be forgiven if all is accidental. as Goethe said " when Ideas Fail, Words Come In Handy." Oh, and please, do look at the Sculpey article, and tell me what you think of my prose style. I should hope i am better then Stephen Donaldson.Ketrovin 19:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with greeting other users. We try to be friendly here. Really, there's no reason for you to trouble yourself about the RFC or that other editor. Friday 19:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Untl it is concluded that i am me, and not he ( tryingto get a rhythm going) then perhaps it is my business. as to why i know his edits, when i was accused ofbeing him , i watched his page. it seemed logical, as a wayto gather ... what is the proper word for Un-Dammning evidance? Ketrovin 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)"

tell me, does this seem like a violation of the good faith edict? or perhaps a two faced way of doing things? mind you, perhaps i am mistaken, paranioa spreads like plague, and the only plague i wish to spread is joy. Ketrovin 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I really should point out that leaving consecutive signed comments with different timestamps is a classic sign of Gabrielsimon. I suppose it could be coincidence. I'd love to have a dev check the IPs to clear up any doubt or confusion. --Golbez 20:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


Okay, this stinks like month-old garbage. The only reason I would think Ketrovin and GabrielSimon aren't the same person is because it's so obvious--this is the Wikipedia equivalent of disguising yourself with a pair of Groucho glasses and a Monty Python french accent. How many user pages highlight "towel day" along with more ordinary interests in manga and anime? This is so crude, I almost have to think it's legit--who could be so stupid as to try to pull something like this? --Craigkbryant 20:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Please try to believe I'm acting in good faith here. I'm acting toward Ketrovin like the puppetry is NOT happening, despite my personal suspicions. FWIW, GS has accused me of being two-faced in the past for the same thing: trying to help him on his talk page, while participating in the RFC. Friday 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt, people, benefit of the doubt! By all means, check the IPs if you must. But until actual evidence to the contrary, Ketrovin should be treated as an innocent party to this whole mess. The supposed evidence you're accumulating is highly speculative and circumstantial. And, Ketrovin, please do try to overlook the overzealousness of some of our knights errant of the Wiki. They do mean well, and have been embroiled in a very frustrating case. Parker Whittle 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree very much! This is why I'm now treating Ketrovin like he's not a puppet. OTOH, yes, I'm acting toward GS like he DOES have a puppet. Sorry if this comes across as two-faced, but I thought it the best course of action in order to not risk offending an innocent newbie. Friday 20:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Very well--I'm prepared to grit my teeth over towel day, fennec foxes, otherkin, and so forth, if that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that we are being played for fools. So, welcome aboard, Ketrovin. I'm interested in seeing what you have to share with us.--Craigkbryant 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just consider the possibility that the root coincidence here is geographical proximity, and that the others derive from it. Does that help bring things into perspective? Parker Whittle 21:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
For GobezI copied this from my talk page. If you would like, go there and check the edit history to proove thee verifibillity of this pasting. I am saying this only because i wish this foolish seeming discussionm to close.

Ketrovin 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Golbez 20:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
for Craigkbryant I am not done with searching for the right words and the right images for my user page. I like Manga enough to be hoping to start a business selling it if the lottory wishes to allow me the funds to do so.

Ketrovin 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For Friday I am unaccustomed to how things work here, but in many places i have been online, people stick to one opinion and well, it looks to me like your operating from tw. This is conmfusing, so i thought i should bring it up. Now if people would kindly go about your happy daily routine, instead of this, we can all get some work done.

Ketrovin 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


... i am starting to question weather joining was a good idea. ( been trying to repond, but i have been getting edit conflicts) Ketrovin 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This may be meat puppetry, not sock puppetry, or perhaps a combination of the two: User_talk:Ketrovin#Sorry. Ketrovin now says he happens to live just down the street from GS. The coincidences continue to be quite astounding. Friday 20:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I live ion a pink house if its interesting, and he lives in a rooming house thats at the other end of the street. do you all think i should perhaps go yell at him for you, for making sch a ruckus onthis site? ( there would have to be such, for lal this attention to be paid) Ketrovin 20:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, where are the unjustified reverts? Where are the frustrating refusals to provide sources? Where are the exasperating instances of original research? Where are the intransigent refusals to read the policies? All the so-called evidence can easily be explained, however coincidental, by any number of factors. As for living down the street, I take that as an instance of disclosure, rather than evidence of meat/sockpuppetry. Again, check the IPs. Watch for violations of policies. But until you've got something substantial, let's avoid declaring a newbie editor guilty by suspicion. We're getting close to a little witch hunt, here. Parker Whittle 20:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't check the IPs. Only a dev can do that. --Golbez 20:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. See if you can get a dev to do it for you. But in the meantime, I don't see any reason why Ketrovin has any obligation whatsoever to answer any questions, provide any justifications. And if he chooses to answer questions, it by no means indicates that he's accepting any burden of proof whatsoever. Personally, I'm embarrassed for the Wiki that people who strive so hard to defend its policies can fall prey so easily to such conduct. Give the guy a break until you've got something that holds water. Parker Whittle 20:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You're right, he has no obligation to do anything. I don't see how this could possibly be called embarassing though, but that's just my opinion. This RFC is about GS's behavior, and Ketrovin should be treated like a legitimate new editor unless we get real reason to do otherwise. Friday 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Plenty of editors leapt to the conclusion that Ketrovin must be Gabrielsimon; that the coincidences were just too uncanny. Ketrovin's time was, unfortunately, wasted by insinuations, if not outright accusations. There are Wikiquette points that should have come into play regarding the sort of qualifiers that should have been placed on any speculations that Ketrovin was a sockpuppet. That's what's embarrassing, personally, about this whole episode. I would like to think that defenders of the Wiki would know better. Parker Whittle 21:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not a sock-puppet of Gabrielsimon, Parker!? ;-). — David Remahl 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, for making a point, indirectly (and unwittingly?) about proving a negative ;-) Parker Whittle 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel's other patterns may just take a little more time to show up. Personally, I concur with Craigkbryant; this smells like sockpuppetry of the most unsubtle sort. ~~ N (t/c) 21:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
People have been falsely convicted of a crime on far stronger evidence. Parker Whittle 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

this account is onlty a few hours old... perhapseveryone gets a tril by fire of sorts? Ketrovin 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

i am no one else's puppet, sokc, meat, social or otherwise. Friday accused mw of being a multiple personality disorder case. i dont like that very much. it would be very nice if people were to give him some stern warnings at least about insulting other users. my talk page has the proof you need for t hat. Ketrovin 21:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Check out User talk:Alexandra Erin. Gabrielsimon has a lengthy conversation with this very new user and then Ketrovin drops in? Suspicious, suspicious. ~~ N (t/c) 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Good LORD! The comments aren't even related! And since when have you known Gabrielsimon to paraphrase Goethe? Lord help us all, I'm glad some of you folks weren't conducting the McCarthy hearings. Parker Whittle 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
And where were you, Mr. Whittle, on the night of the fourth!? --Golbez 22:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Us Subvursives Gotta Stick togeaher. (dont forget, dont get blacklisted. ( trying to join in some fun, instead of being spotlit from helecopters.)

Ketrovin 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I followed a link from the Otherkin talk page, which lead to, among other places, User Alexandra Erin, frm thjere, talk pages are really easy to get to. Then i read the conversation, and left my thoughts, why is this a crime? Ketrovin 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The overly optimistic skeptic among us asked where is the embarssingly bad original research and fighting is... see Religion and schizotypy, which, after I marked it for cleanup, this "new" editor went and immediately started a RfC for complaining about how rude I was... I'm sorry, but assuming good faith is good, ignoring clear evidence of bad faith is not. DreamGuy 22:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I logged in today for the first time, said hello to some people, and got my nise bitten off, metaphorically, im getting quite tired of incivility, so of course im going to complain when your so uncomprimisngly and un nessessarily rude. as for the RFC, it was to attract attention of others who coiuld do better then I. now go about your d ay a nd if you and the other "nosebiters" wouldnt mind, kindly leave me out of it.

Ketrovin 22:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, even I think it's rude, DreamGuy. Ketrovin may be overreacting by opening an RfC, but until proven to be a sockpuppet, his behavior falls well within the category of newbie. Imagine how you might feel if you were found guilty by association on your first day signing up? BTW -- I respectfully submit that the best way to clean up an article is to do it, yourself. Slapping a template on a guy's first article just seems spiteful to me. Patience is a virtue. All is not lost just because one of a user's first articles doesn't come up to par. Work with the guy, don't just slam him on day one. Sheesh. Parker Whittle 22:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it were really his first day, you might have a point, but everyone here (except perhaps you, though it's questionable whether you even really believe wht you are saying) knows it's not. What are the odds that some newbie with the exact same interests, exact same spelling errors, who indents things incorrectly the same way, knows all about RfCs, has the same incomprehensible statements about beliefs and otherkin and so forth, and feels the need to make the same comments on the same peoples' talk pages happens to show up at the exact time Gabriel goes away and then just happens to discover he lives down the street? C'mon, use your head here. DreamGuy 22:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Fact is, neither I, nor anyone else here knows that Ketrovin and Gabrielsimon are one and the same. I see enough differences between their behavior to remain skeptical. Similar interests and spelling/indentation errors could be accounted for by geographic proximity (same socioeconomic/educational background, for example). And clearly Ketrovin could easily have discovered RfC's the hard way -- since comments made to him led him directly to this one. Gabriel goes away for a few hours, and Ketrovin shows up. Big deal. What so hard about giving someone the benefit of the doubt? Consider this: if I'm wrong, then no lasting harm has occurred. Everything can be corrected. But if you're wrong, then you've wrongfully dragged an innocent newbie through the dirt, and have negatively impacted the reputation of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am using my head. That's exactly why I remain skeptical. Parker Whittle 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I know its never going to convince the vendetta holding, really really annoying editor DreamGuy that this isthe case, but this Ketrovin guy isnbt me. now go look at the arbitration page to see my self imposed exile, for a while and see why im not coming back for at least two week., and dreamguy, i rad what you put on the page he made, you could be a little nmicer to the little guy, i mean you dont have to treat EVERYONE like shit, do you? Gabrielsimon 22:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, do you realize you came up with this new idea about a self-imposed exile at the same time that people are saying there is extremely compelling evidence of sockpuppeting? I don't believe you're helping your case here. I suppose you expect us to believe that you've gone away, when another editor pops up and continues the exact same behavior in your absense? For the past week or two, I'd regained my ability to assume good faith on your part. These latest antics aren't helping me keep that ability. Friday 23:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit there is no hard-and-fast evidence of sockpuppetry, but for now I'm convinced that Ketrovin == GS. Look at this: [9] - Ketrovin complaining about scientific point of view in an article on beliefs. GS has been known to do this quite a bit, with similar phraseology. Also, I notice that they haven't left any messages on each others' talk pages, or talk to each other in any way. I find this a little funny too, although it is also a viable explanation that they live near each other. Nothing is proven, but there seems to me to be too much evidence for it to be coincidence. ~~ N (t/c) 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that Ketrovin did the right thing by taking his complaint to the talk page, and hasn't even touched the Otherkin article. You may have a beef with the nature of his complaint, but the Wikipedia remains unharmed. I suggest giving him guidance and the benefit of the doubt, at least until it is clearly established that he is or is not a sockpuppet. Parker Whittle 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the complaint per se, and it's good that he didn't touch the article. I was just pointing out another suspicious parallel. ~~ N (t/c) 23:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that when you say "Nothing is proven, but there seems to me to be too much evidence for it to be coincidence." You are going beyond "pointing out". It's an insinuation, and is unwarranted, IMO. Parker Whittle 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

now look what you guys did! you ruined this placec for somewone who i dont even know! i mean its great to get mad at me, but comeon! you guys auth to be ashamedof yourselfs. im sending the guy ( or girl its imposssible to say) an apology, hopeing theyll come back, by email. Gabrielsimon 23:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


and for the record, i thought of self imposed temporairy exile because it shows more charactor then waiting to e excecuted , and might w ell save e from a ban. not that anyone might have noticed that. Guys, you really screwed up there, methinks. from now on, im only going to respond to talk page messages, on my page, or perhaps on the arbcom page in case this notion of mine migfht get some attention Gabrielsimon 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ketrovin is probably not a sockpuppet of User:Gabrielsimon.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Care to explain how you've come to this conclusion? android79 00:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is completely obvious, look at anything either of them writes, and compare it to anything the other one writes. They are different people, I have no doubt whatsoever. Nothing of signifigance in common. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? You must be looking at different edits than I've been looking at. Friday 00:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
        • They both have spelling mistakes and both have edited similar topics, but thats the only similarity I have seen. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • And have the same interests on their user page (specifically down to a certain type of fox), indent things incorrectly the same way, go running to other people to complain about alleged persecution, made edits totally lacking in sources, object to consensus, went to go chat on a string of user talk pages of the same people, claim to live on the same block of the same city, make random pop culture references in the communication with other people (including a link to the article in question), are against science, recommend "respecting" people by stating that their beliefs are factual instead of showing both sides, and are good at manipulating naive editors... Sounds like a perfect match to me. DreamGuy 00:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

maybe it is becaue Ketrovin didnt get mad at dreamGuy, w the ever maliscious, rude, arogant ( need i go on, i think not) user, when he stared in on Ketrovin on the Otherkin talk page and the Religion and schizotypy; article, which DreamGUy got mad at forbeing prroly formatted and pooorly written, even though ti was thatusers SECOND ATTEMPT. why is no one else mad at DramGuy? Gabrielsimon 00:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • He's guilty....otherwise he wouldn't be a suspect! (naturally, I'm kidding :) Wikibofh 00:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually Gabriel, your sock 'did get mad at me and reported me for extremely rude behavior when AGAIN it was only a case of objectively applying Wikipedia policy in generally respectful language that you blew way out of proportion to try to rationalize things to yourself. DreamGuy 00:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

hes not a sock puppet, and from what i have seen, it looks as though he didnt ge mad, he only respolved to have you cease your words, which, by the way, had it been me, would have resulted in a bit of a verbal bitch slapping, as youy deserve. Gabrielsimon 00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So what if Ketrovin was a sockpuppet?

Unsurprisingly, I side with Sam Spade. However, even if Ketrovin were a sockpuppet, I would completely understand; and as long as he avoided violating any official policies, I'd be inclined to leave him be. Frankly, given how eager some editors have been to literally pounce on any of Gabrielsimon's less-than-stellar edits (in some cases, a little too unfairly) I wouldn't blame him for using multiple identities. While not specifically covered in the policy, I would argue that switching identities in order to get a fresh start (hoping to avoid harrassment) may be a legitimate use of a new account. It's worth noting that it's not prohibited, either. Only if he used it to circumvent an official policy would it be considered an illegitimate use of multiple accounts (for example, if Gabrielsimon were banned, and Ketrovin were a sockpuppet, then Ketrovin would need to be banned as well. However, Ketrovin's behavior far superior than that which landed Gabrielsimon into such hot water, and if proven to be a sockpuppet, should be a good case against a ban; namely, that he is improving). Parker Whittle 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The sock was only on for a few hours and already managed to make false accusations, interpreted simple explanations of policy as insults, created a whole new article full of POV and original research... Even at his worst Gabreil had blocks of hours where he was only highly uncivil and violating verifiability policy as compared to outright hostile and disruptive, so it's a bit of a stretch to use limited edits by someone caught as a sock right away as example of improving behavior. And I really don't see how blatanly lying to people here to try to get around impending actions being taken against him for his contuining bad behavior is something that should make him less likely to be banned... He was trying to dodge responsibility and create false sense of consensus on articles he was outnumbered on. DreamGuy 00:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
All of which is to be expected with a newbie. The only reason it hit your radar is by association with Gabrielsimon. If you didn't think he was a sockpuppet, I'm willing to bet you'd be gentler. And, frankly, I would be insulted by your manners if I were a new user. Parker Whittle 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Besides, I have not seen a single violation of official Wikipedia policy coming from Ketrovin. Regardless of who he is/was -- even if every single contribution of his needed to be cleaned up, he'd be adding value. I would hope you'd reflect a little more on what the spirit of Wikipedia really is before bashing him for his contributions. Yes, they needed work -- but since when has it been an official policy of the Wikepedia that only high quality contributions are allowed? If it's bad, clean it up.Ketrovin, sockpuppet or not, was doing just fine. Parker Whittle 01:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

i onmly get mad at you ehen you act like a complete jackass for no reason. oh, wait, thats all the time. my mistake. perhaps if you bnothered to actuallyt adhere to the civillity lwas in this place i mgiht not get amd at you arrogant, rude, incivil, vendetta holding ass so often, if at all. I am one who mirrors the manners of those who speak to me. im very polite to users like friday, because hes really poite to me, i treat you like dirt becasue you treat me like i just fell out of an elephents ass. Gabrielsimon 00:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


what? you think I was cheating becaue Ketrovin AGREED with ME insead of agreeing with you, well then, Friday has been my sock puppet from time to tim e and sop have many others then, geeze, what an swollen head. would someone stab him with a pin to see if he deflates? Gabrielsimon 00:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, Gabriel, but if you really wanted to help Ketrovin, you'd stay out of it. Parker Whittle 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

its too late now anyway. Gabrielsimon 01:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ketrovin banned as a sockpuppet

FYI for those keeping track: Gabriel screwed up and edited his own RfC response section while signed in as User:Ketrovin and referred to Gabriel as "me", thus proving he was, in fact, a sockpuppet. [10]

The puppet has been blocked. [11]

DreamGuy 06:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ketrovin has since been unblocked. ~~ N (t/c) 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khulhy

This one is suspicious too. So far it's major edits have been to vote on a VfD to keep the obvious sockpuppet User:Ketrovin's article, a change to polymer clay to add info about Sculpey (which was also created by Ketrovin), and to create a new article Non-Human Identity Subcultures about a neologism invented on Talk:otherkin, which User:Gabrielsimon and his sockpuppet were both active on. Not to mention Khulhy mentions that he writes vampire fiction exactly like the stuff Gabrielsimon had told many editors he was working on, and so forht and so on... DreamGuy 02:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Khulhy says his username is the name of a fictional character he created, and lo and behold: [12]. Gabe, put in some bloody effort next time. ~~ N (t/c) 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awwww, Gabriel

Had to cross the line, didn't you Gabriel/Khulhy/Ketrovin? You were doing allright for a while. I feel for you, but you've got to learn to reign it in. You are under extreme scrutiny, and you're allowing yourself to be goaded into pointless scraps. Please take some time to relax, set your ego aside, and try to play nice, even if you're being treated harshly. Take the high road, buddy. It's the only way to go. Parker Whittle 07:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple specific hints: Deleting evidence is never productive. And you will be caught if you use sockpuppets. ~~ N (t/c) 07:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin the Chosen: sock number three

Gavin the Chosen has all but directly admitted on his talk page that he is a sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. Many other people discovered this before me, but I thought I'd add it here to make sure the record is complete. android79 12:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He fully admitted this one, and preannounced it to one or two admins. I guess the idea was he was going to abandon all old usernames and just use this one, and they said it was OK and not technically a sockpuppet because he wan't actually using more than one just the new one (although I personally dispute that, not that the name we used to refer to what he did really changes what happened either way). They've also said that they were watching him and if he went to any of the old names they would have blocked him. They also say that they would have made sure that any action taken against User:Gabrielsimon as part of the RfAr would apply to his new account. They kind of wanted to keep it quiet thinking that he'd be able to have less conflicts on the new name, but he got blocked once already for an infringement and a number of people figured out it was him right away, so that didn't work. It's kind of complicated, but the admins involved (User:SlimVirgin and User:Ed Poor) told him it was fine so I don't think we can count this as a violation. These discussions were kind of spread on on their talk pages as well as those of a few admins who were trying to step in and sort it out without knowing it was preapproved. But anyway, seems the final answer is Gabriel is now permanenetly Gavin and the current RfC and RfAr still run, just when he shows up to answer things it's as the new name. DreamGuy 12:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
How they thought this could be kept quiet is beyond me, especially if Gavin chooses to make the same kinds of edits to the same articles with the same style. If we don't technically call it a sockpuppet, that's fine with me, I guess. android79 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that the actions described above do not constitute any kind of a policy violation. Any of us can choose to have three accounts or a thousand. The only things that constitute a violation are using sock puppets to "vote" multiple times (whether in formal voting processes or revert wars) or circumvent a block or other restriction. Those are the only things I included in my presentation of evidence the other day. "Gavin" got himself blocked for vandalism, and I find his defense difficult to swallow, but that is not a sockpuppet-related offense per se. If this is what he needs to attempt a "fresh start," then fine.--Craigkbryant 13:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Except for the fact that if his RfAr turns into any kind of sanction, that will apply to his sockpuppets (And the behavior of his sockpuppets is evidence against him), so it helps to document and call out these actions. --Golbez 13:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with User:Craigkbryant that he's welcome to the fresh start (even though I don't quite get the logic behind the plan, but OK), and yes this should be documented somewhere -- and now it is. Some of the sockpuppeting is evidence against him, some could conceivably support him. The new one seems sort of neutral right now. I guess just see how it goes. DreamGuy 14:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous "sock puppet"

It seems Gabriel has taken to editing anonymously from the IP 69.195.126.19. I have taken the liberty of copying the following conversation from Slim Virgin's talk page to this page, which has been a sort of central sock-puppet repository:

And it's all but certain that User:69.195.126.19 is User:Gavin the Chosen on an IP address jumping in to revert Otherkin back to the way he had it. The IP's previous edits are exactly the same topics Gavin started out editing when he got his new name and look like they date back to before he registered the first time, and, come on, what are the odds that someone who hasn't been here since April who wrote on Canadian residential school system would suddenly show up to revert to Gabriel's version? DreamGuy 16:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
WITCH HUNT! thata ll i have to say.Gavin the Chosen 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Kindly remove your head from the sand and admit your wrongdoing. The ArbCom will not look kindly on your actions today, but they will look much less kindly on you if you deny what you did. ~~ N (t/c) 16:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, yet again you have been caught violating Wikipedia rules of conduct, and yet again you have chosen, when called upon it, to lie and impugn the character of another editor. Here is a link to a comment you signed as "Gabriel Simon," while editing anonymously as 69.195.126.19.
Slim, I would like to suggest that this edit to "Otherkin" violates the terms of the agreement under which you and Ed agreed to mentor Gabriel. I'm not sure that this is working. --Craigkbryant 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

(above posted by Craigkbryant 16:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC))

And FYI for those who missed the 3RR page and the rest of the User talk:SlimVirgin page (she set herself up as one of two admins who were going to ride him to make sure he followed rules and asked that I contact her directly with complaints, so that's why it was there), the change on Otherkin as an IP was to do a revert back to his favored POV position and to try to avoid a 3RR report -- that makes his third 3RR violation since he became unblocked a few hours ago. That block was for two 3RR violations he did and those happened immediately after he came back from yet another block... The guy isn't learning a thing, he's just getting progressively worse and starts up immediately after a block instead of working his way into it over a few days. DreamGuy 17:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's time to do something a little more drastic in Gabriel's case. It's getting to the point that whenever I log in and see a page related to him, it's about some other thing he's done against policy. This is just ridiculous. Haikupoet 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree. I don't think Gabriel is entirely beyond help, but until he begins to act with greater maturity and starts taking responsibility for his own actions, I think any efforts on his behalf are doomed. He seems to think anything he does is fine as long as he can blame it on someone else. Kudos to Ed and Slim for trying, though. I am in awe. Vashti 17:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Gabriel knows the 3RR and he knows how to count. When he was blocked yesterday, he wrote on his third revert:
(cur) (last) 10:07, 2005 August 15 Gavin the Chosen (deletionism is not acceptable, this is the third and final time iwillbe reverting this today, please, if admins are around, do note that im TRYINg to not get in crap, but the deletions arent acceptabl) (emphasis mine)
And then 24 minutes later he makes the fourth revert which triggers his 3RR block. He knows what he's doing and can no longer claim perpetual ignorance. Enough. He's unwilling to follow the rules, and this is ridiculous. - grubber 10:46, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

[edit] Blew it.

What's it, 3 days in and he's blown it again. [13]Hipocrite 03:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems to me all these overtures about reform have just been talk. android79 03:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, he made a questionable edit there. But I see no pattern of bad edits on this. We're not trying to crucify people for any and every mistake. Friday 04:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
True, but one would think that, if he got anything out of the RfC so far, it'd be: "Don't delete other users' comments, even if they're DreamGuy's." That hasn't stuck. I remain skeptical. android79 04:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
And want to know the weirdest thing about that edit? He claimed that "only admins can place tags like that." but he removed a tag that was placed there by an admin -- the admin who has been working directly with him I might add, so he knows he's an admin -- that I just restored after the sockpuppet in question removed it. And Gabriel/Gavin also removed other comments that had nothing to do with the tag. And on top of this, all this came the day after I agreed not to communicate with Gabriel anymore provided that the two admins sponsoring his fresh start got him to understand that he had to stop following me around. And when I went to stress that again to the main admin today after seeing some of Gabriel's edits (like the one above), Gabriel again butts in to the conversation. He's not even supposed to be talking to me, let alone reverting me. I'm willing to give him lots of leeway, but I'm still trying to undo problems he caused on Vampire (article is still locked, because one editor is claiming that Gabriel and a long strong of socks put together equals consensus) and these recent actions don't look encouraging. DreamGuy 06:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this. It's gone too far, and while we have to be fair to Gabriel, we have to be fair to other editors too. I'm blocking him for 24 hours until I've had a chance to discuss with others how to proceed. Any feedback here would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the block, and am severely disappointed with Ga(b)vin - you'd think he would have learned from the other 10 or so times he's done this. I still think he can shape up, but a couple more of these and I might lose faith. I would definitely continue to block every time he commits such an obvious policy violation. ~~ N (t/c) 06:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have suggested several times that Gabriel take a Wikivacation, and if he doesn't want to take one, perhaps it should be imposed. The RfAr is still open, isn't it? I'll be around on the IRC channel from about 1100 hrs UTC on if anyone wants to talk about it. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 06:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for the reminder - I'm adding this incident to the RfAr evidence. ~~ N (t/c) 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Further thought: This, like the insane number of 3RR violations Gabe has committed, shows evidence of poor self-control. I'm not sure what could be done about that, but a Wikibreak might have a very good effect. ~~ N (t/c) 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. A block for each wikiviolation seems warranted. He knows all the rules, having been told them repeatedly, bludgingly, and continuously by many, many editors. - grubber 09:36, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
I would like to see this user indicate that they are familiar with the rules concerning their behaviour. The two admins who are mentoring this user could prepare a short quiz on pertinent points and get the user to take the test. Not necessarily on a pass or fail basis, but on subjects that still need work basis. When they (and the community) are satisfied Gabe/Gav is aquainted with the rules concerning protocol, manners and good editing, he could be able to be left alone, more or less to his own devices. Questions, comments, ideas? Hamster Sandwich 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
A point of consideration, this assumes that the problem edits come as a result of ignorance, not malice or poor decision making skills. Gabriel/Gavin's use of sockpuppetry, apparent lies (when he blamed his roommate for editing as him) and claiming to have been asleep when he was active, etc), and many many violations of the same areas over and over again suggest that ignorance of the WikiRules may not be the problem. It pains me to suggest this, and I don't do it lightly, but we must consider the evidence. - Chairboy 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Fundamentally, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "should". He "can" edit any page any way he would like. He should not. Claiming ignorance of the rules is ridiculous. Here are some he knows about, but either doesn't care about or chooses to ignore:
  • 3RR (violated at least 7 times)
  • Sockpuppetry (knew about it after Khuly, still created Gavin)
  • NPOV. Explained multiple times.
  • No Original research. Actually, he seems to get this now...sometimes. I remember him asking about whether or not some of his fictional work would belong here (he asked Ed), and Ed told him no, and he didn't put it in. I'm not sure he can stick to it on the Otherkin and it's ilk.
  • Don't edit other users comments. This one isn't a policy per-se, but how many times has it been explained to him not to just delete other people's comments he doesn't like. If he wants to do it on his Talk page(s) I don't care, but he has done it in the RfAr, the RfC as well as articles, etc. To me this is common sense.
  • RfAr: Ignored the section right at the top saying not to edit the RfAr directly or other peoples evidence. Did it anyway.
  • No personal attacks. Yes, DreamGuy and G have had problems. Maybe they're both guilty of it. Doesn't excuse it.
Wikibofh 18:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the idea that Gabriel just didn't know any better doesn't cut it for me. He knew all this stuff several months back, or, at the very least, should have. He was accused of vanfdalism / accusing other people of vandalism / trying to claim he didn't violate 3RR because he was just removing vandalism for at least four months, and recently on his Gavin account claimed he never even read the Vandalism policy! This after he had been given direct links to it over and over regarding earlier conflicts. And the sockpuppet thing is definitely not a case of him not knowing better because look at the very first comments at the top of this page -- not to mention he saw several sockpuppets banned right off of the Vampire article he was involved in so saw what was oing on there. His sockpuppets came not too much longer after those. He keeps coming up with bizarre excuses, and there comes a time (long past, IMNSHO) when ignorance of how things are done is either clearly just a deception or willful and intentional. DreamGuy 01:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've spoken to others about this too, including Ed Poor, and the consensus seems to be against an indefinite block, but in favor of blocks for each offense, possibly getting longer each time. One admin suggested warning him before each block, but I feel he's been warned enough. So my own policy from now on is that he'll blocked for a period, probably 24 hours, for every violation of 3RR (obviously), for sockpuppetry, deleting other people's posts from talk pages, graffiti, personal attacks, or general disruption. People can let me know on my talk page (or Ed Poor's) if there's a problem, preferably with diffs. DreamGuy, as before, please don't follow his edits, and if he seems to be following yours, let me know. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
After the fnording, I pointed out Wikipedia:Vandalism to Gavin and said basically "what were you thinking?"; he said he didn't know it was against the rules. I have great difficulty believing that. ~~ N (t/c) 03:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Right, as though everything has to be spelled out, which of course it can't be. Just to clarify, when I wrote above that I intend to block for each offense, I'm speaking only for myself; other admins may do something else. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)