Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

message: whats sock puppeting?
Gabrielsimon 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Continued reverting? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sorry, but I must protest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I should sign that properly: Haikupoet 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: fridays overreactions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * Actually (as I indicated on your talk) it's even better than that.  I OWN BOFH.com.  The username is not merely posing.  :)  Wikibofh 03:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: so anyway

message: this whole put me under the microscope thing has been going on for a while now, ive siad id work on it, peole have asked for what they wanted of me, and i AM working on it, so how about people leaving me in  peace now??  please?
Gabrielsimon 01:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  im really getting sick of this

message: It's clear we have a mountain of evidence against Gabrielsimon. What is the next step? Haikupoet 04:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does trying to hide what I said prove? Haikupoet 04:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What do we do now?

message: i grow weary of being under a mircoscope, and i would like it very much if people would close this RFC, i have already agreed to what rational editors have asked of me and begun to imnplement this into  myt behaviour, barring the vendetta holding DreamGuy's horribly constant objections, i would propose a motion to close this, but any may post comments on my talk page  if they feel i am fdoing wrong. (unsigned, but by Gabrielsimon)
:How does violating the 3RR rule twice in less than 3 days (well, maybe less since you were blocked for like 24+ hours in the middle of that time), putting highly abusive comments everywhere, strong POV warring to things that already have consensus, removing other editor's comments, falsely trying to use the protected tag on articles to lock them the way you want them and so forth even come CLOSE to trying to improve? You're even worse than you used to be, and you've learned absolutely nothing from this process. The fact that you happen to be attacking me most of the time and making your abusive edits specifically on article I am on is what ends up making me report these things, but note that a good portion of the evidence from Aug. 1 was placed there by other editors. DreamGuy 04:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Stop deleting other people's comments, Gabriel. This is precisely the sort of behavior that has you up for RfC in the first place. Haikupoet 04:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: if all would do me a favour please

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampire_fiction&diff=next&oldid=20244683
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=20244990
very tempted i am to do totherwise, but thems the breaks...
Gabrielsimon 06:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: me trying to follow the rules

message: #Gabrielsimon 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He already agreed to the 1RR thing a week or more ago, it didn't help at all, by the way. DreamGuy 09:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
#Oppose Gabriel is not getting any better, in fact he's getting much worse than he used to be even. See how the incidents on the evidence list got more serious as time goes on? DreamGuy 06:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 - you, reamGuy who hats me with a passion unbridled, and carries a vendetta gainst me for reasons i am either unawae of or have forgtotten, are not a fair judge of anything that has to do with me,  because of said aforementioned hatred.  do be quiet.
Gabrielsimon 09:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: motion to close RFC

message: ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually Gabriel, your sock 'did get mad at me and reported me for extremely rude behavior when AGAIN it was only a case of objectively applying Wikipedia policy in generally respectful language that you blew way out of proportion to try to rationalize things to yourself. DreamGuy 00:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
hes not a sock puppet, and from what i have seen, it looks as though he didnt ge mad, he only respolved to have you cease your words, which, by the way, had it been me, would have resulted in a bit of a verbal bitch slapping, as youy deserve.
Gabrielsimon 00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ketrovin]] is probably not a sockpuppet of [[User:Gabrielsimon]].

message: FYI for those keeping track: Gabriel screwed up and edited his own RfC response section while signed in as User:Ketrovin and referred to Gabriel as "me", thus proving he was, in fact, a sockpuppet.  
The puppet has been blocked. 
DreamGuy 06:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Ketrovin has since been unblocked. ~~ N (t/c) 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ketrovin|Ketrovin]] banned as a sockpuppet

message: This one is suspicious too. So far it's major edits have been to vote on a VfD to keep the obvious sockpuppet User:Ketrovin's article, a change to polymer clay to add info about Sculpey (which was also created by Ketrovin), and to create a new article Non-Human Identity Subcultures about a neologism invented on Talk:otherkin, which User:Gabrielsimon and his sockpuppet were both active on. Not to mention Khulhy mentions that he writes vampire fiction exactly like the stuff Gabrielsimon had told many editors he was working on, and so forht and so on... DreamGuy 02:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Khulhy says his username is the name of a fictional character he created, and lo and behold: . Gabe, put in some bloody effort next time. ~~ N (t/c) 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Khulhy|Khulhy]]

message: Had to cross the line, didn't you Gabriel/Khulhy/Ketrovin? You were doing allright for a while. I feel for you, but you've got to learn to reign it in. You are under extreme scrutiny, and you're allowing yourself to be goaded into pointless scraps. Please take some time to relax, set your ego aside, and try to play nice, even if you're being treated harshly. Take the high road, buddy. It's the only way to go. Parker Whittle 07:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple specific hints: Deleting evidence is never productive. And you will be caught if you use sockpuppets. ~~ N (t/c) 07:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Awwww, Gabriel