Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence

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)

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)

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

30 June

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
  • Gabrielsimon is reverted by Rhobite. [3]
• 21:46
  • Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. [4]
    • The sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• 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]
    • The sources: [15] (no longer online) [16] [17] [18]
• 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
  • Cyrius blocks Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [28]

Evidence presented by Solipsist

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

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

9 July 2005

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

• 13:08, 21 April 2005
  • Gabrielsimon is discussing with User:24.164.211.25 (later confirmed to be User:Dbraceyrules/Horatii) how to orchestrate revenge against User:DreamGuy.

29 July 2005

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

• 01:25, 29 July 2005
  • Gabrielsimon apologises to DreamGuy on his talk page

• 01:37, 29 July 2005
  • Dbraceyrules suggests deleting the RfC

30 July 2005

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

• 22:29, 30 July 2005
  • Gabrielsimon had already been in discussion with User:Vashti on the Otherkin page, but this diff marks Gabrielsimon's responce to DreamGuy becoming involved.

30 July 2005

and a worse disupte and revert war escalates on Vampire

• 29 July 2005
  • DreamGuy reverts a large passage added earlier by User:Existentializer at 19:04, 29 July 2005
• 23:57, 29 July 2005
  • Gabrielsimon reverts back with the edit summary of 'there is no spoon'
• an edit war ensues - History of Vampire
• leading User:SlimVirgin to protect the page on the the 4th August (?)
• 02:49, 4 August 2005
  • Gabrielsimon delivers a personal attack against DreamGuy in response to SlimVirgin's enquiry as to what is going on.
• 03:20, 4 August 2005
  • Gabrielsimon adds a {protected} tag to the Vampire page with the comment 'if we are to aboid a DreamGuy's ego based edit war, this seems nessessary'.

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)

Evidence presented by Nickptar

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

27 July

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

31 July

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

1 Aug

• 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.

4 Aug

• 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]

7 Aug

• 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)

Evidence presented by Wikibofh

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.

• Block log
• Blocked and acknowledged in his talk

23 April

• 3RR report for Vampire lifestyle

20 June

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)

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)

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)

30 June

• 3RR report for God with a further 5 reverts after the report also noted.
• GS notified

1 July

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.

• 3RR report for George W. Bush
• GS notified

7 July

• 3RR report for Wolf.
• GS notified.

12 July

• 3RR report for Mythology. (In the interest of full disclosure, I made this report.)
• GS notified

20 July

• Blocked for 3RR on September 11, 2001 attacks

1 Aug

• 3RR report for Otherkin.
• GS notified