Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry for the break in protocol, but i have to say this this wa, hows this, since i hate it when people tell me what to do ( in the authoritative sense) how about i do sometyhing of a punishment to myself? ill go away for like two weeks, and then well see how things go from there. btw, dont really expect me to reply, it starts immidaitly. Gabrielsimon 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) addend8um... becasue id liketo maintain my talk page, and answer questions as they come, i bleieve i should not go entirely, but i should restrict my editing to editing only my and possibly this page, and any user who invites me to edit thier talk page ( my modificated version of a block) itll keep me out of your hair, for two weeks, and it i hope will show more growth of charctor then i was able to try to proobe recently. hows that sound? Gabrielsimon 23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not good, we want to enter into a dialogue about your editing. Fred Bauder 00:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
diolouge is good. if you wised to use email, filmbuff42@yahoo.com wouldsuffice, if here, my user page is always open.(To civil people at any rate)Gabrielsimon 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Android79[edit]

30 June[edit]

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

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

  • 21:28
    • Gabrielsimon adds a poorly-worded, illogical, and unsourced "War for Oil" claim into George W. Bush. [2]
  • 21:32
  • 21:46
    • Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. [4]
  • 21:51
    • I revert Gabrielsimon and indicate in my edit summary that this ought to be discussed on the talk page. [10]
  • 21:51
    • Rhobite explains why he thinks the paragraph is POV and unsuitable for the article. [11]
  • 21:54
    • Fuzheado adds a protection notice to the page, but due to a bug or some other oversight, the page is not truly protected. [12]
  • 21:55
    • I explain my problem with the paragraph: it is supported by highly biased sources. I include a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources in the hopes that Gabrielsimon will take the time to read it and improve his citations. [13]
  • 21:57
    • Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a second time, this time with four more dubious sources. [14]
  • 21:58
    • Fuzheado reverts Gabrielsimon. [19]
  • 21:59
    • Gabrielsimon says that he has added more citations to the paragraph. [20]
  • 22:00
    • Fuzheado announces on the talk page that the article is now protected. The protection has actually failed to occur. [21]
  • 22:01
    • Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a third time. He has now violated the 3RR. [22]
  • 22:06
    • Fuzheado laments his inability to properly protect the page, and mulls blocking Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [23]
  • 22:08
    • Gabrielsimon demands that his edits remain in the article while a discussion as to their suitability is ongoing. He implies that those of us that are reverting his edits are not following proper procedure and calls us "jerks." [24]
  • 22:09
    • Gabrielsimon states that he has reverted three separate sections of text, and that he has not broken the 3RR. This goes against the spirit of the 3RR, as Gabrielsimon has only made minor changes to the paragraph he wishes to insert into the article. [25]
  • 22:12
    • I explain why I'd like to discuss the edits on the talk page before they go into the article. [26]
  • 22:26
    • I tell Gabrielsimon that the new citations he has added all come from biased editorials, a fact he has either chosen to ignore or does not believe affects the suitability of the paragraph for the article. [27]
  • 22:31

Evidence presented by Solipsist[edit]

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

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


9 July 2005[edit]

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

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

29 July 2005[edit]

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


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

30 July 2005[edit]

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

  • 22:29, 30 July 2005
    • Gabrielsimon had already been in discussion with User:Vashti on the Otherkin page, but this diff marks Gabrielsimon's responce to DreamGuy becoming involved.
once again, DrteamGuys insulting incivillity and refusal to accept the fact that he is wrong doenst help anything, noty to mention false claims and POV pushingGabrielsimon 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2005[edit]

and a worse disupte and revert war escalates on Vampire

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

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

I can interpret the events in one of two ways;

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

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

EreamGuy is damaging this community by continuing his campaign of POV pushing and incivllity, hes driven morethen one user away from topics in disgust.Gabrielsimon 06:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 August 2005[edit]

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

  • 08:01, 7 August 2005
  • 10:13, 7 August 2005
    • Some of his first edits are to Canadian residential school system, with additions about forced schooling of Native American children. Gabrielsimon's first edits, 23:37, 8 March 2005, were similar. This may be an attempt to build credibility (Gabrielsimon has pointed to those early edits as some of his best work), or it may be a pet project.
  • We can skip over the rather bizarre and disruptive Fnord campaign that occupies Gavin_the_Chosen's editing for the rest of that day.

8 August 2005[edit]

9 August 2005[edit]

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Nickptar[edit]

Some actions taken by Gabrielsimon on other users' comments and on his RfC:

27 July[edit]

  • Deleting DreamGuy's and his own comments: [29] [30]
  • Removing the note of above from his RfC: [31]

If you had someone being insufferably rude and insulting for months on end, yuo wouldnt wnat to hear from them either. im not really able to tolerate DreamGuys annoying commentary any longer, and his accusations usually stem from him watching and w aiting or baiting and reporting violations HE vcasuedGabrielsimon 05:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

31 July[edit]

  • More deletion of DreamGuy's comments: [32]

If you had someone being insufferably rude and insulting for months on end, yuo wouldnt wnat to hear from them either. im not really able to tolerate DreamGuys annoying commentary any longer, and his accusations usually stem from him watching and w aiting or baiting and reporting violations HE vcasued

1 Aug[edit]

  • Deleting his own, Friday's, and DreamGuy's comments: [33]
  • Removing his 3RR violation from the RfC: [34] [35]
  • Attempting to have his RfC speedy deleted: [36]
  • Deleting his 3RR violation report: [37] [38] [39]
  • At this point he is firmly convicted that the arguments against him are lies and must be suppressed. His justification for the 3RR violation is that DreamGuy was making bad faith edits. GS has claimed in past edit wars (on United States, for example) that his 3RR violations are excused because the edits he doesn't like are vandalism, when in point of fact, this is not true.

They seemed lie vandalism to me.Gabrielsimon 05:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Aug[edit]

  • Deleting DreamGuy's comments again: [40] [41]
  • More RfC tampering: [42]
  • Putting the "protect" template on the RfC: [43]
  • More RfC tampering: [44] [45] (I really don't understand that last one) [46]

If you had someone being insufferably rude and insulting for months on end, yuo wouldnt wnat to hear from them either. im not really able to tolerate DreamGuys annoying commentary any longer, and his accusations usually stem from him watching and w aiting or baiting and reporting violations HE vcasued.Gabrielsimon 05:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Aug[edit]

  • Deleting evidence from this very page: [47]
  • Deleting the same evidence, and the above report, within a couple minutes: [48] [49]

you see why, easily as i, it seemed that to report something that almos happened isnt fair. i still hold that viewGabrielsimon 05:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. It did happen. It doesn't matter that it wasn't reported. Even if you didn't violate 3RR, your constant POV-pushing was unacceptable. 2. You've been warned so often about tampering with evidence that it seems you should know better. ~~ N (t/c) 05:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10 Aug[edit]

  • By this point Gabriel, now editing as Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs · block log) has been shaping up. He has announced that he wants a fresh start, he has the support and supervision of SlimVirgin and Ed, and is generally shaping up.
  • However, see [50]: he deletes a sockpuppet indicator from User talk:Pukachu, saying "only admins can place tags like that" (the tag had been placed there by none other than Ed Poor), and deleting two of DreamGuy's comments. Not only is this unacceptable behavior that he's been warned against many times, but he and DreamGuy had agreed, with the advice of the administrators involved, not to interfere with each other anymore.
  • See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Blew it. for further discussion.

15 Aug[edit]

16 Aug[edit]

19 Aug[edit]

  • 3RR #4. Wyss notes that this is his 20th block counting both accounts. ~~ N (t/c) 22:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Wikibofh[edit]

Gabrielsimon has consistently violated WP:3RR. Doing so once could be understood, even a second time by accident, but he does not seem to have learned, and the electric fence doesn't seem to matter. It results in extensive revert wars across multiple pages with numerous editors and admins.

23 April[edit]

20 June[edit]

Likely violated 3RR on Book of Mormon. Never reported or blocked. The edits are numerous. He is notified on his talk page but chooses to delete it.

  • First edit 00:47, June 19, 2005
  • The diff that shows the totality of the changes he made in 15 edits from the first edit to 17:37, June 20, 2005

This Is an almost, sonce i was never reported for any wrongdoing here. thereafore, please disregard it ( herpahs i should have jut put this here instead)Gabrielsimon 05:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wrongdoing is still present - to my inspection, you added the section on "none of the prophecies have come true" four times. That it wasn't reported is irrelevant. I'm glad to see you're no longer deleting this, though. ~~ N (t/c) 05:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, im a bit of a duncce, but if people tell me what im doing wrong, without insulting me or being rude., i listen.(sometimes it helps if people spell it out tho)Gabrielsimon 05:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were told - non-rudely - on your talk page, and deleted it. Perceived rudeness (where I see none) is not an excuse for not listening & breaking rules. ~~ N (t/c) 05:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

30 June[edit]

1 July[edit]

This one is the one that I don't think can be defended. He was blocked at 18:25, June 29, 2005 for 24 hours. He comes back and violates 3RR at 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC). This is at least his 3rd violation, and his 2nd in just over 24 hours.

7 July[edit]

12 July[edit]

20 July[edit]

1 Aug[edit]


Evidence presented by Craigkbryant[edit]

User Gabrielsimon appears to have violated Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets by using an alternate identity, Khulhy, to cast a vote (along with Gabrielsimon) against deletion of Religion and schizotypy .

Link showing votes cast by both accounts: 1

Khulhy has not been proven to be a sock puppet, but circumstantial evidence appears to be very strong. Another account, Ketrovin, has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon: 2. Additionally, the name "Khulhy" is found on gabrielsimon.com as a character he created: [3]. On the user page for Khulhy, the user identifies the name as one he created for a science fiction universe: 4.

A second incident involves the user account "Ketrovin," which has been ruled a sock puppet and blocked: 5. This may not be an actual violation of Wikipedia policy, but this account was created by Gabrielsimon 6 shortly after he suggested a voluntary period of exile as a way to conclude the Request for Arbritation 7. This seems to me to show bad faith, as it suggests he was already plotting to circumvent the voluntary "ban," even before it was made official. --Craigkbryant 03:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by UninvitedCOmpany[edit]

I had planned to gather evidence this weekend but note that others have taken the initiative. I have little to add.

These are serious attempts at dispute resolution, in most cases by Wikipedians who are expert in dealing with conflict. That none of us were able to achieve anything leads me to question whether any change in behavior can indeed be achieved.
  • Though it is difficult to provide evidence in the form of diffs to demonstrate this, I note that Mr. Simon's contributions to the article space fall neatly into three categories:
  1. Edits to high-visibility, conflict-prone, general-interest articles, such as United States, Canada, September 11, 2001 attacks, George W. Bush, God, Homosexuality
  2. Edits to articles related to Mormonism: Book of Mormon, Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith Jr.
  3. Edits to articles on occult and paranormal phenomena: Werewolf, Otherkin, Faerie, Vampire, Vampire lifestyle, Witchcraft
Those who have been around the wiki for a while will recognize that it is nearly impossible for even an experienced editor to make contributions to articles in categories 1 and 2. Because the articles are already of high quality, the standard for new material and edits is very high indeed. They also exist in a state of tense compromise among various editors, so that successful changes require uncommon diplomacy skills in addition to uncommon writing ability.
Our articles in category 3 could use rather more editing. But picking some edits to Witchcraft at random as an example, the editing pattern is unhelpful:
[61] Mr. Simon defends an anon's cut-and-paste addition from a copyrighted source, for which the anon claims permission but with insuffucient documentation to verify GFDL compliance
[62] and again
[63] FreplySpang (talk · contribs)'s patient explanation garners petulant "i for one will not take you seriously"
Taking Vampire lifestyle as another example:
in a series of edits Mr. Simon has a go at reformatting the article, and ends up removing the interwiki link, cleanup tag, and a fair amount of other formatting.
Another editor painstakingly hand-restores the markup [64]
Ultimately, most of Mr. Simon's editorial changes are removed on their merits, making the whole exercise a wasted effort. [65]. The interwiki link is never re-added.
The point I make is that while these edits are not necessarily disruptive, nether are they helpful. There is little Mr. Simon is doing here that is furthering the goals of the project.


Evidence presented by Hipocrite[edit]

I typically see myself as a reasonably level-headed guy. Since I tried focusing on WP:COOL, I found that I've been a pretty good facilitator of discussions. Gabriel, however, broke me.

On 03:39, 21 August 2005 Gavin violated WP:NPA on my talk page. [66]

On 03:46, 21 August 2005 Gavin violated WP:AGF on my talk page. [67]

On 03:52, 21 August 2005 Gavin violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF on my talk page. [68]

During the lot of this, he was doing nearly the same on the talk:otherkin page

I have found that, in editing otherkin, Gavin is unwilling to make any moves to work with other editors. Worse than the politics POV warriors that I believe I have had significant success in working with, Gavin is unwilling to enter into discussions about the best way to move articles forward. He sees wikipedia as a contest for him to win, not an encyclopedia to move forward. I was hoping that I would be able to come to this evidence section and say that I believed he was going to make positive changes, and point to my heroic efforts in otherkin as evidence that with the right kind of opposition, he could be fixed.

I was wrong. I might be good, but I'm not that good. Hipocrite 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Gavin is fixated on his imaginary arch-nemesis, the evil DreamGuy, who apparently has made sock puppets as early as Oct 2004, and given them a substantial edit history, just to send them out now, to attack Gavin. Actually, woudn't that make DreamGuy my sock puppet?Hipocrite 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Chairboy[edit]

Deleting user comments

Pretty clear revert violation here. I count 7 (SEVEN) times that Gavin has reverted this Jesus issue on a single page of history. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] I'm not 'out to get' Gavin/Gabriel, but this is clear evidence of a continuing pattern of disruption and 'just not getting it'. - CHAIRBOY 05:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Grubber[edit]

Here are two more 3RR violations not reported by anyone on this page yet. His count for blocks and 3RRs has now entered double-digits. - grubber 22:17, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

August 24, 2005[edit]

Violated 3RR on Therianthropy, as reported by User:SlimVirgin on Gabriel's page, visible at this link. Note that he was not blocked (by SlimVirgin's mercy) and this will not appear in Gabriel's block list.

August 27, 2005[edit]

Violated and blocked for 3RR on List of people who have said they are a god, as reported here.

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin[edit]

In recent days, I've reluctantly concluded that the situation with Gabriel isn't going to work. He either can't or won't control his behavior, and as a result has been blocked 20 times since April 24 (15 times in July and August), mostly for 3RR. [76] [77] [78] For each block, there have been many other occasions where he's reverted a lot but stopped short of 3RR, or else violated it but wasn't blocked for it. Most of what he does is revert; when he edits, his contributions are usually unsourced personal opinions which have to be deleted or rewritten. This puts a strain on the editors who deal with him and causes tempers to flare, leading to personal attacks.

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

To give the most recent example of his behavior: he believes that Jesus shouldn't be included in List of people who have said that they are gods and has deleted the Jesus section 10 times between August 19–29. [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] On August 26, he was approached by several editors, including Theresa and myself, about his frequent deletions of it. [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] Although he knew we were watching his edits, he continued to revert, violated 3RR, and was blocked, [94] followed by his usual excuse that he didn't realize it was four times, and anyway it was the fault of others for reverting him. [95]

His second edit on August 28 when the block was over [96] was to remove Jesus again with the edit summary "see talk... this will take me a few minutes to type on the talk page ,so please, no revreting till ive put what i wantto say" [97] but he didn't post anything to talk until nearly three hours later, and even then it was just a brief comment repeating what he'd said before. [98]

I left a note on his talk page warning that if he deleted Jesus again, I'd regard it as disruption. [99] He saw the warning [100] but deleted Jesus a few hours later. [101] I therefore blocked him for 48 hours for disruption, which was followed by posts and e-mails from him once more suggesting the problem lay with other people's failure to read his posts or edit summaries correctly, [102] [103] and that he is "the one who tries very hard to get things done around here, and doesnt EVER seem to be even remotely apprecaited for [his] attempts." [104]

On August 26, while his reverting at List of people who have said that they are gods was going on, he was also reverting three times at George W. Bush, [105] where he wanted to claim that Bush's responses to 9/11 site workers were "a pre-arranged cue, executed by agents of the President and designed to allow him to recite a punchy and inspiring script for the television cameras," (a previous editor's words), with no source, but with the reasoning: "really now, would you put it past opportunistic polititians? [106]

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


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence&oldid=1089441940"