Revision as of 06:00, 14 August 2005

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 on the proposed decision sub-page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Competence

1) Successful editing of Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I'm not happy about demanding that people need competence in proper syntax, grammar and spelling. These things are east to fix by anyone. It's more important to know how to identify and provide quality sources, to understand how NPOV works, to have the maturity to cooperate with other editors, and to truly understand our policies such as 3RR. Incompetence in these areas cannot be fixed by the wikiprocess. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Sdo you dont really like me not always being able to typeas well as i would like to huh? tough beans, as far as i am aware of, its not against policey to have been hit by a car and had ones hand rebuilt, almost fromthe point ofbeing severed fromthe rest of me, Im sorry to anyone who puit that there that i do not meet your huigh standards, but Puh=leese, i do the very bes i can.Gavin the Chosen 00:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Immature behavior

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Dreamguy has nothing to do with this. What I suggest is that if you have some trouble with someone that you not concentrate on them as a problem. Fred Bauder 03:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. this is very likly to be Dreamguys addition to this page, considering that it primarily seems to focus on myt delaings with him. well heres a thought, how would any of you react when someone refuses to show civillity fr months on end? you get annoyed, as forhte FNORD! ing, well thats been solved.Gavin the Chosen 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Serial probation

1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I'm happy with the indefinate nature of this remedy. I've never liked the idea of limiting AC decrees to a year. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. isnt a month kindq extreme? A week mght be a little more, well, realistic, in my opinion.Gavin the Chosen 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Serial probation limited to total of one year

1.1) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An alternative Fred Bauder 22:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. As mentioned before, why does ti have to be sucha long block? a month i a bit on the excessive side , specially considering that i dont vandalize.Gavin the Chosen 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Procedure if ban is broken

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Uhh, since the "sokpuppets" were failed attempts to make a new main account, why is this even important?Gavin the Chosen 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Android79

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The dialogue on Talk:George_W._Bush is at Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#Bush.27s_war_is_based_on_his_faith and Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#ARTICLE_PROTECTED. Fred Bauder 12:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All times are UTC-5. android79 04:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

1

Gabrielsimon adds a poorly-worded, illogical, and unsourced "War for Oil" claim into George W. Bush.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The addition by Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) is unsourced and apparently novel. It seems that Iraq had opposed the building of an oil pipeline across the country. This is the real reason for the war. Proof given by GS is that no weapons of mass destruction were found. Fred Bauder 01:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2

Gabrielsimon is reverted by Rhobite.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removal and request for citations Fred Bauder 17:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph, this time with five citations, three of dubious quality. :

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 attackscite 3cite 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 Iraqcite 5.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This paragraph needs considerable copyediting. Additionally it was not Bush but an oil company that wanted a pipeline. Fred Bauder 19:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4

The sources:

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. It turns out that the pipeline was through Afghanistan. The second source documents expanded opportunities in Iraq for US and UK oil companies. The third source looks at the situation from a monetary perspective. The fourth in terms of oil prices. The fifth concerns the failure to find WMDs These sources more or less support the material GS advanced. Fred Bauder 18:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5

I revert Gabrielsimon and indicate in my edit summary that this ought to be discussed on the talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. See bottom of Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_25#Bush.27s_war_is_based_on_his_faith. Note comment at bottom regarding spelling and grammar. Fred Bauder 19:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
2. This had followed an edit war over this addition by GS:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6

Rhobite explains why he thinks the paragraph is POV and unsuitable for the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Rhobite's comment is sensible. Beyond the issues of phrasing and sources is the question of whether the information fits appropriately in this article, which after all is about George W. Bush, not the Iraq War. Fred Bauder 13:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7

Fuzheado adds a protection notice to the page, but due to a bug or some other oversight, the page is not truly protected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8

I explain my problem with the paragraph: it is supported by highly biased sources. I include a link to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources in the hopes that Gabrielsimon will take the time to read it and improve his citations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, some of the sources obviously have an agenda. However, no matter how good the sources are the question remains of how much detailed information belongs in this article. Fred Bauder 13:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a second time, this time with four more dubious sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. GS is doing what you asked, supplying the best sources he can find. Fred Bauder 13:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10

The sources: (no longer online)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The sources express strong anti-Bush points of view. Fred Bauder 11:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

11

Fuzheado reverts Gabrielsimon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

12

Gabrielsimon says that he has added more citations to the paragraph.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, he's doing what was asked, but may be confusing opinion for fact. Fred Bauder 11:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

13

Fuzheado announces on the talk page that the article is now protected. The protection has actually failed to occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

14

Gabrielsimon reinserts the paragraph a third time. He has now violated the 3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. GS feels that now he supplied sources he should not be reverted if someone has consulted the sources. Fred Bauder 11:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

15

Fuzheado laments his inability to properly protect the page, and mulls blocking Gabrielsimon for 3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

16

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."

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. GS feels aggrieved, as most energy seems to be going into reverting rather than discussing. Fred Bauder 11:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

17

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

18

I explain why I'd like to discuss the edits on the talk page before they go into the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. A reasonable explanation which invites dialogue. Fred Bauder 11:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. After all the crap i went through to try and get people to pay attemtion, by the point thatthis edit came through i had lost all interestt in discussion with people who didnt seem to read, only to revert.Gavin the Chosen 00:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

19

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, opinion pieces. Fred Bauder 12:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

20

Cyrius blocks Gabrielsimon for 3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Eccentricity , you say... well, i supposethat untilyou see what ive seen, im going to seem like a nutcaseGavin the Chosen 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. See Fred Bauder 12:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Read the entire discussion, i never said anything about actually doing anything.Gabrielsimon 06:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DreamGy refused to acknowledge either, and treats both users incivilliyGabrielsimon 06:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. He seems to just be asking for a clarification. Fred Bauder 13:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

once again, DrteamGuys insulting incivillity and refusal to accept the fact that he is wrong doenst help anything, noty to mention false claims and POV pushingGabrielsimon 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EreamGuy is damaging this community by continuing his campaign of POV pushing and incivllity, hes driven morethen one user away from topics in disgust.Gabrielsimon 06:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7 August 2005

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.

• 08:01, 7 August 2005
  • Gabrielsimon creates a new account under the name Gavin_the_Chosen
• 10:13, 7 August 2005
  • Some of his first edits are to Canadian residential school system, with additions about forced schooling of Native American children. Gabrielsimon's first edits, 23:37, 8 March 2005, were similar. This may be an attempt to build credibility (Gabrielsimon has pointed to those early edits as some of his best work), or it may be a pet project.
• We can skip over the rather bizarre and disruptive Fnord campaign that occupies Gavin_the_Chosen's editing for the rest of that day.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. (I assume this section is meant for me to comment in.) Regarding the fnording, Gabriel claims he wasn't aware it was against the rules: . I find this quite surprising. ~~ N (t/c) 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

8 August 2005

• 20:24, 8 August 2005
  • Gavin_the_Chosen asks Voice of All(MTG) to help demonstrate that he is not a sockpuppet and professes not to know what a sockpuppet is. This is of course, a lie. The conversation continues at User_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)#assistance_please, in which Gavin_the_Chosen claims to have received an email from Gabrielsimon warning him that others are suggesting he might be a sockpuppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No good dragging an innocent third party in. I think what we have, looked at as a whole, is childish behavior. Fred Bauder 12:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. At the time i hadthought it might help in trying to maintain " cover" because the days before were relaxing, whilethe wkekes andm onths as my old name waas quite ztressfull. not the best plan, but well, i was uninspired.Gavin the Chosen 00:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

9 August 2005

• 00:20, 9 August 2005
  • Voice of All(MTG) tells Gavin_the_Chosen that he has examined the evidence and believes that he is indeed a sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon.
• 11:24, 9 August 2005
  • Gavin_the_Chosen appologises to Voice of All(MTG) for the deception.

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. see whats written above. als, the voluntairy " vacation" was never adcepted.Gavin the Chosen 00:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: