Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon: Difference between revisions

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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))[reply]

--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I should sign that properly: Haikupoet 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You've done that quite effectively all by yourself, Gabriel. Haikupoet 18:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]