Case Opened on 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log)
• UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs)

Mr. Simon has been blocked for 3RR violations on no fewer than six instances in the past three months, in addition to duplicate blocks and reblocks by admins fiddling with the block durations. These blocks have been placed by eight different administrators (when duplicate blocks are included), making it clear this is not anyone's personal vendetta.

Mr. Simon's past edit wars have been fuelled by his unique views on capitalization, punctuation, and animal rights. His most recent edit war has been on September 11, 2001 attacks (history), where he has become the most recent in a long list of those who simultaneously espouse conspiracy theories and relabel the attacks as something other than terrorism. I can find no contributions of brilliant prose in his editing history that would serve to mitigate these problems.

While Mr. Simon does appear to mean well, he has not responded well to several patient attempts [1][2] [3][4] [5] to help him contribute in a constructive fashion in accordance with project norms. It is for this reason that I believe that mediation would be unhelpful; Wikipedia is not therapy and past efforts attempting it have been notably ineffective.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ive been trying to adapt how i do things to more constructive methods, the aforementioned edits on the 9/.11 page were me trying to remove the word terrorist, becasue i thougth that it was a word to avoid , according to policey. people tend to misinterpret what i say, partly because of not so great choices in how i say things, this happens irl as well, so i simply got used to it. some times people even get mad at me for my spelling mistakes, which i do try not to make, but a combination of nerve damamge and a low attention span becasue of ADHD doesnt makle this the easiest thjing in the world. i personal;ly think that the uninvited compay person is over reacting, but thats just me.

its not like im not putting effort into trying to do things better. Gabrielsimon 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i havnt vandalized, and i havnt doe an thing even remotely simmilar, id say that should lend me some credibillity Gabrielsimon 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

most of the blocks are the result of me not being carefull, and accidentally ovweerdoing things, with respect to 3rr. its a part of the qttention span thing... its not as if i am unrepentant, but if your going to look at mty talk page, why not check the archives as well. Gabrielsimon 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm "involved" or not, but in some ways I seem to be Gabriel's closest buddy or mentor here at Wikipedia. I've befriended, advised, but never blocked him.

Two blocks since first writing this: [6] Uncle Ed 11:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I warned him to be careful about rules while I was on vacation, and he proudly told me upon my return that he had managed to avoid suspension during the entire period (over 7 days, I think). Since he responds well to my leadership, I propose a mentorship agreement. (Something like I just had with Kim Bruning, actually ;-)

If Gabriel will give me written permission to suspend his account at any time I see fit, I will use this power to the stick in a 'carrot and stick' approach and coach him on how to become a productive and useful Wikipedia contributor. Uncle Ed 16:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

since this seems deadlocked, might i be able to sway your opinions if i were to tell you that i have listened to all the req2uests , dea,ijng with me changing my methods of editing, and i have beguin to assimilate thgese ideas into my own techniques, in a few cases outright unwatching pages; ( foreample, the 9/11 attack page) and if given the chance, i will try to be as good as possible, and attmpt not to do anything that was the casue for this RFA in the first place. thanks for listening~ Gabrielsimon 03:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject, let's give this guy some time to learn and grow. Gabrielsimon, please do all you can to listen to the advice others are giving you. These are experienced editors - learn from them -- sannse (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject along the same lines as sannse. James F. (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, concur with sannse. Neutrality^talk 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Hopefully Gabrielsimon will learn and grow, and we will not be seing this request again. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to accept. Clearly there is a problem here. [7] [8][9] (all recent) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Gabrielsimon has been editing Wikipedia for 4.5 months now, and has 1,500 edits. This is no newbie, and hopes for improved editing should be tempered with acknowledgement of the complete lack of progress so far, even at recognizing that there is a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight correction: he seems to think the problem is not with him, but with the current policies, which he will have to get changed.[10] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, see typical unsourced POV edit [11], see also Talk:Witchcraft#References_for_post-Columbian_origin_of_witch-accusations Fred Bauder 02:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Concur with Fred and Jay. →Raul654 19:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [12], [13]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [14] and scrambled syntax and spelling [15].

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

2)Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs) has frequently engaged in revert warring (see for example [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]) and has been blocked multiple times for breaking the WP:3RR (see block log for Gabrielsimon and block log for Gavin the Chosen

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

1.1) Gabrielsimon (under any username) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

2.1) When Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) 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.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

3) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Should Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) return using any sockpuppet or anonymous IP during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 0 at 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A log of all bans imposed by administrators under the provision of remedy 2.1 must be maintained here

• Blocked 10 October 2005, expires 16 November 2005 (including six days remaining of week-long 3RR block). Suggested by SlimVirgin, and endorsed by Nickptar, android79, and Bryan Derksen. Reasons: repeatedly ignoring 1RR, sockpuppetry. ~~ N (t/c) 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended by SlimVirgin on 22 October 2005, expires 22 December 2005. Extended to two months per enforcement #1 - Gabriel, as 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs), made several edits on Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy. ~~ N (t/c) 23:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended by User:Android79 on November 3, 2005; expires January 3, 2006. Gabrielsimon returned under the username User:The Great Saiyuki, exhibiting the same editing tendencies and style. Restarted the two-month ban given his immediate revert of Otherkin to a preferred version without discussion and blanking of User:SlimVirgin's user page, not to mention insults and invectives hurled on his own talk page. android79 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP check reveals this to be false; restored to expiry on 22 Dec. ~~ N (t/c) 01:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just commenting here to indicate I agree with the striking out of the above. android79 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 28 December 2005, expires 30 December 30; a punitive block for logging into his previous sockpuppet accounts to delete information pertaining to his activities and identities. [25] [26] [27] I am not banning these as per the ruling, the sockpuppets are to be banned only when used during a one-month block of Gimmiet, but I suggest we do so anyway, he has no business using these, and the only use for them in the last 60 days has been to remove information about his activities and identity. --Golbez 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the other accounts should be indefinitely blocked. There's no reason for them to be used. android79 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 3 January 2006, expires 4 January. For repeated reverts on his user talk page (User talk:Gimmiet), blanking information about his parole that he's been repeatedly told that he shouldn't be deleting. Bryan 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone check to see if User:Prycon is a sock puppet? He appeared half an hour after I blocked Gimmiet and picked up a revert war on Natasha Demkina that Gimmiet had been involved with just before the block. Bryan 05:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 20 January 2006, expires in three days. Revert-warring in violation of parole on Otherkin. android79 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 24 hours, violation of 1RR probation on vampire lifestyle Bryan 06:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting here that it was in fact a 3RR violation at Vampire lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because he reverted as 69.195.126.177 (talk · contribs), which falls within the same range as his previous IP 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs). Apparently he also reverted twice at Cahokia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was actually two reverts on Cahokia, two on Sanguinarian and once on Chastity (comic book), for at least 9 reverts in 24 hours (only allowed three total) and four on on article alone (only allowed one).DreamGuy 09:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]