This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.
1)
1)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen ( talk · contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [1], [2]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [3] and scrambled syntax and spelling [4].
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans.
1.1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 2 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans. At the end of one year from closing of this case Gabrielsimon will be released from any current ban and his case reviewed.
1) Ed Poor ( talk · contribs) shall serve as a mentor of Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs). He shall guide and advise GS with respect to adequate editing and handling of disputes. GS must agree to this remedy and to giving Ed Poor the power to temporarily block his account. Mentorship will end after one year but may be extended by mutual consent.
Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per week per article. If he reverts more than this he may be blocked up to 24 hours as per the WP:3RR.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Should Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) return using any sockpuppet during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months.
2) Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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. android 79 04:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon adds a poorly-worded, illogical, and unsourced "War for Oil" claim into George W. Bush. [7]
Gabrielsimon is reverted by Rhobite. [8]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. [9]:
It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough afghani cite 1 territory to a port thats none to far away, and thier objections was the cause of the invasion and destruction of the government there. Iraq, having the second largest prooven oil reserves beneath it, cite 2 also makes a juicey target for the Bush, becasue he does come from a family of oil tycoons, economics being thier true true motive in both of these attacks cite 3 cite 4. This is supported by the simple fact that there never were any weapons of mass destruction of either chemical, nuclear nor biological nature in Iraq cite 5.
The sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
I revert Gabrielsimon and indicate in my edit summary that this ought to be discussed on the talk page. [15]
It would seem that Bush's War in Iraq is based on his faith as well, for he said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." 1
The problem with this paragraph is that the quote is second-hand. Fred Bauder 19:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite explains why he thinks the paragraph is POV and unsuitable for the article. [16]
Fuzheado adds a protection notice to the page, but due to a bug or some other oversight, the page is not truly protected. [17]
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. [18]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a second time, this time with four more dubious sources. [19]
The sources: [20] (no longer online) [21] [22] [23]
Fuzheado reverts Gabrielsimon. [24]
Gabrielsimon says that he has added more citations to the paragraph. [25]
Fuzheado announces on the talk page that the article is now protected. The protection has actually failed to occur. [26]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a third time. He has now violated the 3RR. [27]
Fuzheado laments his inability to properly protect the page, and mulls blocking Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [28]
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." [29]
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. [30]
I explain why I'd like to discuss the edits on the talk page before they go into the article. [31]
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. [32]
Cyrius blocks Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [33]
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.
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)
Shortly after this the RfC became moot and Gabrielsimon and Dbraceyrules make consiliatory gestures
DreamGy refused to acknowledge either, and treats both users incivilliy Gabrielsimon 06:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
However almost immediately a further dispute breaks out at Talk:Otherkin
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;
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)
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.
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)
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. [36] [37] [38] 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. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] On August 26, he was approached by several editors, including Theresa and myself, about his frequent deletions of it. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Although he knew we were watching his edits, he continued to revert, violated 3RR, and was blocked, [54] 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. [55]
His second edit on August 28 when the block was over [56] 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" [57] 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. [58]
I left a note on his talk page warning that if he deleted Jesus again, I'd regard it as disruption. [59] He saw the warning [60] but deleted Jesus a few hours later. [61] 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, [62] [63] 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." [64]
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, [65] 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? [66]
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)
I don't understand the rationale for any of these convoluted remedies. Gabriel isn't mature enough to keep his commitments. He has repeatedly promised us the moon only to carry on the following day as though nothing had happened. I fail to understand why the arbitration committee expects the community to continue to put up with Gabriel, given that so many of us have bent over backwards to work with him, and yet he neither follows community norms nor contributes anything of value. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not working, and enough is enough. He began as an annoyance, he has grown to be a nuisance, and is rapidly approaching a cancer. We can no longer feel sorry for his disabilities. We can no longer feel sympathy for his immaturity. We can no longer harbor hope that he will improve. We have given him enough rope, and all he wants to do is hang himself. We can no longer, in good conscience, waste any more time or energy on him. This needs to come to an end. I'd almost suggest an indefinite ban, but since I'm a softie, I'll just suggest a year, for him to grow up, if that is at all possible. But he won't. And we'll just have extend it again when he returns. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If he is editing George W. Bush what name or ip is he using? Fred Bauder 13:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
"without discussion" really? try actually readingthe tak page. Gavin the Chosen 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
the way it was explained to work is as follows - make the change, then explain it. so i did. i dont see what reason you have to complain, andriod. Gavin the Chosen 13:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
ill keep that in mind. Gavin the Chosen 13:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.
1)
1)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen ( talk · contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [1], [2]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [3] and scrambled syntax and spelling [4].
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans.
1.1) Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 2 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans. At the end of one year from closing of this case Gabrielsimon will be released from any current ban and his case reviewed.
1) Ed Poor ( talk · contribs) shall serve as a mentor of Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs). He shall guide and advise GS with respect to adequate editing and handling of disputes. GS must agree to this remedy and to giving Ed Poor the power to temporarily block his account. Mentorship will end after one year but may be extended by mutual consent.
Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per week per article. If he reverts more than this he may be blocked up to 24 hours as per the WP:3RR.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Should Gabrielsimon ( talk · contribs) return using any sockpuppet during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months.
2) Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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. android 79 04:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon adds a poorly-worded, illogical, and unsourced "War for Oil" claim into George W. Bush. [7]
Gabrielsimon is reverted by Rhobite. [8]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. [9]:
It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough afghani cite 1 territory to a port thats none to far away, and thier objections was the cause of the invasion and destruction of the government there. Iraq, having the second largest prooven oil reserves beneath it, cite 2 also makes a juicey target for the Bush, becasue he does come from a family of oil tycoons, economics being thier true true motive in both of these attacks cite 3 cite 4. This is supported by the simple fact that there never were any weapons of mass destruction of either chemical, nuclear nor biological nature in Iraq cite 5.
The sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
I revert Gabrielsimon and indicate in my edit summary that this ought to be discussed on the talk page. [15]
It would seem that Bush's War in Iraq is based on his faith as well, for he said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." 1
The problem with this paragraph is that the quote is second-hand. Fred Bauder 19:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite explains why he thinks the paragraph is POV and unsuitable for the article. [16]
Fuzheado adds a protection notice to the page, but due to a bug or some other oversight, the page is not truly protected. [17]
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. [18]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a second time, this time with four more dubious sources. [19]
The sources: [20] (no longer online) [21] [22] [23]
Fuzheado reverts Gabrielsimon. [24]
Gabrielsimon says that he has added more citations to the paragraph. [25]
Fuzheado announces on the talk page that the article is now protected. The protection has actually failed to occur. [26]
Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a third time. He has now violated the 3RR. [27]
Fuzheado laments his inability to properly protect the page, and mulls blocking Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [28]
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." [29]
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. [30]
I explain why I'd like to discuss the edits on the talk page before they go into the article. [31]
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. [32]
Cyrius blocks Gabrielsimon for 3RR. [33]
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.
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)
Shortly after this the RfC became moot and Gabrielsimon and Dbraceyrules make consiliatory gestures
DreamGy refused to acknowledge either, and treats both users incivilliy Gabrielsimon 06:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
However almost immediately a further dispute breaks out at Talk:Otherkin
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;
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)
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.
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)
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. [36] [37] [38] 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. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] On August 26, he was approached by several editors, including Theresa and myself, about his frequent deletions of it. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Although he knew we were watching his edits, he continued to revert, violated 3RR, and was blocked, [54] 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. [55]
His second edit on August 28 when the block was over [56] 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" [57] 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. [58]
I left a note on his talk page warning that if he deleted Jesus again, I'd regard it as disruption. [59] He saw the warning [60] but deleted Jesus a few hours later. [61] 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, [62] [63] 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." [64]
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, [65] 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? [66]
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)
I don't understand the rationale for any of these convoluted remedies. Gabriel isn't mature enough to keep his commitments. He has repeatedly promised us the moon only to carry on the following day as though nothing had happened. I fail to understand why the arbitration committee expects the community to continue to put up with Gabriel, given that so many of us have bent over backwards to work with him, and yet he neither follows community norms nor contributes anything of value. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This is not working, and enough is enough. He began as an annoyance, he has grown to be a nuisance, and is rapidly approaching a cancer. We can no longer feel sorry for his disabilities. We can no longer feel sympathy for his immaturity. We can no longer harbor hope that he will improve. We have given him enough rope, and all he wants to do is hang himself. We can no longer, in good conscience, waste any more time or energy on him. This needs to come to an end. I'd almost suggest an indefinite ban, but since I'm a softie, I'll just suggest a year, for him to grow up, if that is at all possible. But he won't. And we'll just have extend it again when he returns. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If he is editing George W. Bush what name or ip is he using? Fred Bauder 13:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
"without discussion" really? try actually readingthe tak page. Gavin the Chosen 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
the way it was explained to work is as follows - make the change, then explain it. so i did. i dont see what reason you have to complain, andriod. Gavin the Chosen 13:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
ill keep that in mind. Gavin the Chosen 13:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)