User talk:Gimmiet/Archive1

Block

I've blocked you for reverting twice at Otherkin using an anon IP in violation of the arbcom ruling. I've blocked you for one week this time because of the repeat offenses, which the ruling allows for, and because of the use of an anon IP as a sock puppet, which makes it an aggravated offense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. your 21uick to jump at my throat atrrent you? qhy else would i have spoken about stuff on HJenu if iwqas just going to not do anything like i wassupposed to???Gimmiet 19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you're not 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs) or Sg'te'gmuj (talk · contribs)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users i was.

in the interest of something called full disclosure, theres who i was

User:Gavin the Chosen User:Gabrielsimon User:Khulhy

who have i forgotten?Gimmiet 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also 69.195.126.19 (talk • contribs) and 69.195.126.149 (talk • contribs) and, apparently, Sg'te'gmuj (talk • contribs). I wouldn't be surprised if there were others. I strongly recommend you not make anon edits or create any new logins, as other editors may view it as a continued attempt to circumvent normal editing practices and the conditions imposed on you by the Arb Com. Friday (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you blank this page again, I'll protect it. Other editors need to be able to see what's going on here. I'll ask you again: are you saying you're not 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs) or Sg'te'gmuj (talk · contribs)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this page because Gabriel kept blanking that he'd been blocked and the reasons for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We all forgot User:Ketrovin... at least until he signed onto that account just recently and tried to blank the info there. Another clear sockpuppet of his, as he posted profanities to the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon page and other things to try to "support" Gabrielsimon, but forgetting which account he was signed onto... That account was blocked I thought, so I don't know how he signed on recently to remove the talk page pointing the stuff out. Perhaps he hoped to go back to using that one. DreamGuy 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Month block

As you may have noticed, SlimVirgin has extended your block for one month, per the arbcom ruling. I'm sorry, but you brought this down on yourself. ~~ N (t/c) 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

Your block has been extended by one month, in accordance with the arbcom ruling and as agreed by three admins, for repeatedly violating the injunction on reverting and for using sock puppets. With six days of the week-long block remaining, the current block is 37 days from today. I hope you'll use the time to become familiar with the ruling so that you're able to comply with it in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended again

Your block has been reset and extended to two months, in accordance with the arbcom ruling, which says: "Should Gabrielsimon 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." You violated the ruling when you posted on October 20 and 22 at Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy as 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive sock check?

It sure looks to me like Gabriel has no intention of quitting with the sock puppeting. Are there are technical means to alert us to new accounts being created or used by his known IP addresses? Seems like it might save work to know ahead of time, rather than waiting for the socks to blatantly misbehave. Friday (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tach'Ara

Sure is suspicious. Might this be Gavin trying to evade his ban? — David Remahl 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most emphatically is not. Tach'Ara has been around (as IPs) for over a month, and her spelling, interests, and attitude are completely different from Gavin's. ~~ N (t/c) 21:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Welcome back, ya goofy bastard. What's with the see-also to the non-existant article on Otherkin? Doesn't seem like an overly-used concept, I doubt there'll be an article on it anytime soon. Friday (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol. well, i thought perhaps it was a topic worth discussing, and , well, im thinking of making an article like that. Godess knows i need more decent edits around here. ... by the by, i happen to know who my daddies are. lol Gimmiet 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take your word for it. ;-) I changed the see-also to Totemism since there's an article there already and it seems to be related to what you were going for. Friday (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thall work.Gimmiet 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

First of all

Merry Christmas! Glad to see you back, here I'll welcome you back:

Welcome!

Hello, Gimmiet/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I saw your note on DreamGuy's page. Words of wisdom:Drop it. Forget it. Forgive it. You are starting to beat a dead horse, it is time to move on to make constructive edits to Wikipedia now. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was Dbraceyrules some time ago, my name has been since changed! ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{verify}} on Vampire lifestyle

"doesnt seem necessary" is not a good enough reason to justify the removal of this tag. Please actually demonstrate why it shouldn't be there, by showing what source is cited to verify the information in the "sanguinarian vs. psionic" section, or if there is no such source finding one and citing it. Please also remember not to revert again, or you'll be in violation of parole.

Oh, and welcome back. It does seem like you're behaving better than last time, so far. ~~ N (t/c) 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iut is a discussion vbetween two kinds of vampiric being, bothn of which can npot BE verified, becasue there is no scientific evidance to sypport thier existance, but what there is is the commuinity viewws on it, which could and are verified. hence the verify tag seems not needed there.Gimmiet 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding what is meant by verifiability. We're not asking for verification of whether the beliefs are correct, we want verification from a reputable source of what the beliefs are. We've been through all this before. Friday (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

such seems to be provided already, through much deleted linkage.Gimmiet 17:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us where; it sounds like you know, so it shouldn't be too hard to find the specific link. ~~ N (t/c) 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.vampiresamongus.com/psyvamps.html

This looks like some random personal website. Is there something that makes it a reputable source? Friday (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its a member of the commmunity, speaking about the community....Gimmiet 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources. (Also, it'd be helpful if you could properly indent your comments.) ~~ N (t/c) 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and what happens whne there arent any "official" sites?Gimmiet 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This was your second revert today on Vampire lifestyle. I've blocked you for 12 hours. It doesn't matter that you reverted something different than what you had reverted before, and it doesn't matter that you only reversed some of DreamGuy's changes; it's still a revert. Really, Gabriel, you must learn to control yourself, stop following DreamGuy, and most importantly discuss changes before making them. ~~ N (t/c) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some of the see links in the external links section were pertanant, and were wrongfully deleteed, its not because it was that annoying gent who made the edit, if you had done it i wpould still have done it, spite doesnt come into it. also , im not IN 1rr, i was told that when the block experes, its clean slate. please reconsider your block.Gimmiet 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were not told that at all. Re Theresa Knott's statement on your old talk page, it said that the probation ends when you have managed to edit for six months without being blocked. You didn't manage six days. The actual text of the decision is "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.". No timelimit given, but I think the 6 month limit is generous. --Golbez 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't feel like arbitrating whether or not they were rightly deleted at the moment (perhaps DreamGuy could come explain his reasoning?), but even if they were that doesn't justify breaking the rules (if you're in the right then you should be able to convince someone else to make the change). Also, as Golbez has explained, there is no expiration date on your 1RR. ~~ N (t/c) 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were put there by an anon IP, removing several links that had been there and adding ones that looked to me like an instance of spamming, by removing competing sites and adding your own... the person who did it even removed the sites from the list of references footnoted earlier in the article, meaning there are footnotes that don;t match up thanks to whomever that was. Gabriel just decided to undo whatever i did without looking into it, and in his zeal somehow managed to duplicate listings to the same site on top of everything else. It's just another example of him making revenge edits and not even looking to see what he's actually doing and assuming what I did was wrong because it was me doing it... DreamGuy 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give him a second chance, he has been here only a day and may have been confused. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A point of information, if you review his history, you'll see that he is OFTEN confused about the basic foundation of any judgement/ruling/anything that happens to him. I sometimes wonder if A: Gabriel is capable of understanding and participating under the structures in place or if B: we must stop assuming good faith. I'm not certain, based on this saga, that there are other answers, but I'm hoping there are, as neither of the two appeal to me. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SECOND CHANCE? SECOND CHANCE?! Dude, this guy had his second chance back in, what, April or May? He's on his like 289th chance at this point. I mean, seriously, how many total blocks has he had throughout his various sockpuppet accounts? And blocks come after it has been shown that he wasn't taking advantage of a second chance to start over. And for a long time now he's ended up being blocked again within a day or so of his previous block expiring, which means he so immediately is back to doing the exact same things that got him into trouble before that he is noticed quite quickly. This isn't a matter of someone making good edits and then slipping up later and people treating him unfairly, it's a matter of someone repeatedly always making the same bad edits he has been told not to make probably thousands of times by scores of editors at this point. We can't just keep giving him another chance when he has never demonstrated willingness to even TRY to follow the rules here. I'm frankly astounded he wasn't permanently banned, especially as it's doubtful whether any of his edits here have ever actually contributed toward improving this site. DreamGuy 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, or Gimmiet, or whatever account he is using, has been given plenty of second chances. He's pretty much exhausted all of them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was my reasoning in blocking him for 12 hours as opposed to 24. But no way should he be let off for this. ~~ N (t/c) 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I should rephrase, two-hundred and nintieth chance. : ), Seriously, you all, unfortunately, may be right - I hate to say so because I sort of consider the guy a friend. But, come on, I still don't think that blocking him on his great return is the best thing, I think he should be banned from DG's talk page, though.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a start, but if you check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (in particular /Workshop) , you'll see that wasn't Gabriel's only problem. I have long given up hope that he'll ever change, but I'll let the terms the ArbCom imposed on him to carry the day. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Gabriel, why don't you make an agreement to not revert DreamGuy, period - instead, say why you think he's wrong and then let SOMEONE ELSE make the change if they agree with it. I think you would get in a lot less trouble and everybody would be under a lot less stress if you could agree to this. ~~ N (t/c) 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put something wrothwhile in, he removes it, then im not allowed to undo his act? i dont see how that can be very good for my stress level... if he would just stop acting like a baby, things might be better.(sigh...)Gimmiet 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help you

...by urging you to not get yourself into trouble. In honesty, one can relate you having another block hours after a two month block is like being imprisoned for several years for murder and going back to prison for shoplifting. I want to tell you that I hope you can patch your relationship with DG. There is no reason to go to edit wars with him, and get an even longer block, or, perhaps, be blocked for indef. I don't want to see this happen to you. You have had several complaints filed against you already, and you will not have any good defense if you continue such behavior. Now, me and you have known each other for quite sometime. I haven't tried to go against you on anything, from what I recall I was trying to defend you on your RfC. I must tell you that it is time to change. Don't get blocked for two months, I think it is time for you to edit in a more constructive method; I still do not agree with others on the debate that you are a bad editor, in my opinion to be here, working on the largest encyclopedia in history makes your contributions here of merit. It is the conduct with DreamGuy that seems to be the problem. I used to be, well, not so friendly with DreamGuy - look how that changed! I went from being one of those idiot IPs that vandalized user pages, to an active editor, a member of several WikiProjects, and I am (or was) in the WP:1000. You are ahead of where I was some eight months ago...so get more ahead. I lost an RfA partially due to that crap with DreamGuy, so I know I won't be heading downhill like that again. What I am going to do is to try to get some articles of mine to FA status and reach 10,000 contributions (I have about 7,600 now), then I plan to leave (or at least decline my edits) the project as it has gotten boring, and it is in the way of school work, and I am sick of the racial abuse and the hostility of some editors. Before I do this I want to give you a word of advice: STOP!, take care, ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read your e-mail, and I want you to know that I am very sorry to hear the news, I hope all goes well and that you and your family have a Happy Holiday. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. this kind of thing is... well, hard to deal with.Gimmiet 16:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of stuff from user talk pages

Things such as warnings about rule violations and notices of administrative action are important to keep track of, you can't just delete them like this (relevant information can be found at Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space). If you prefer, though, it's common practice to move user talk pages into archival subpages when they get overly large; you could try moving this page to User talk:Gimmiet/Archive 1 and putting a link up at the top so that other users can still access the material on it. Bryan 01:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmiet, I repeat, you can't just delete those things. The purpose of this page's existance, and of all pages' existence, is to assist Wikipedians in their goal of constructing an encyclopedia. Keeping track of your past difficulties, sock puppet accounts, blocks, arguments, etc. is an important function that pages like this one perform, and that overrides any proprietary sense of "ownership" you might have over it. Please stop selectively deleting stuff from here, it's verging on vandalism now. I've already explained how you could archive it instead, would you like me to do that for you perhaps? Bryan 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider opinion, worth what you paid for it: Bryan is right. If you want your talk page to be free of warnings like that, stop being disruptive. Even then, it's no gaurantee. I get people complaining at me on my talk page, and I go out of my way to make sure I'm not edit warring. Friday (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, you're not a normal editor here anymore. You are under severe limitations imposed upon you by ArbCom rulings related to your frequent abuse of policies. To insist that you can remove things from this page because other editors can remove things from their talk pages isn't an issue anymore. Yes, you are being treated differently, but it's because you brought it upon yourself, and the info on your sockpuppets and so forth need to be here. You've been blocked before for trying to remove this info, and you've already been warned by one admin that you will be again if you keep it up. The way to demonstrate that you are willing to follow policies here and try to work better is to listen to what they say and do it, instead of continuing to try to blank things or selectively archive sections to try to hide your past transgressions. DreamGuy 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if you feel the need to complain on talk pages, and you want to see trivial opinions of other editors, I suggest that you all consult the page history. Clearing his page, in my opinion, does not hurt you all. Saying that it is a method " to assist Wikipedians in their goal of constructing an encyclopedia" is a good reason to look in the page history. I mean, I couldn't blame him for not wanting to hear such complaints. Currently, I replace text such as these with Lorem Ipsum, and direct to the user who may wish to see the comments do so in the page history (I even leave a diff. link). I suggest that Gabriel Simon be permitted to do the same. I wouldn't be suprised if he left Wikipedia all together, as he could rightly assume that he isn't welcome, or at least is being treated fairly badly. I know that he has done things to anger other Wikipedians, but I think it is ridiculous to treat a veteran of Wikipedia like an IP. Something has to happen here, clearly, but I doubt imposing things like this is the the answer. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so a history of disruptive editing entitles him to lenient treatment? Interesting opinion, but I can't say I agree. Friday (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is so not what I said, go to the bottom of the page, please. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For fun

I'm discussing this with folks, but until I get a solid answer, be on notice that I'm going to treat the 1RR probation against you as also applying to your user talk page. Fair warning. Please stop removing evidence against you; if you don't like it, stop breaking the rules. --Golbez 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you can get in shit for abusiung admin powers like that. I dont plan on breakinbg rules, id rather justbe left alone, its bad enough that some things happened that happened recently, i dont need you causing me gruef. go bother someone else. yes, i am in a sour and horrible mood, but you would be too. tou want to know why? sure illtellyou. ewmail me and ill tell you. Gimmiet 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can email me through my link. If you're in such a poor mood that your edits suffer, maybe you should take a break. We are not here to coddle you, and I haven't abused anything yet - you, on the other hand, are a serial abuser of our good will. --Golbez 07:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

You have reverted this page several times. You make demands; you are in no situation to do such. You demand respect, but have none to give, so you have none to receive. Since you are not editing in a bad fashion on the rest of the wikipedia, I am not blocking you - and blocking would not prevent you from editing your talk page, so it would be futile. You may be going through a lot of bad stuff in your life, I know exactly what you're going through - but that doesn't mean that YOU tell US what to do on Wikipedia. You need to figure that out if you think you have any chance of staying here a moment longer. I'm protecting this page to prevent you from reverting it, and the only people with a reasonable need to contact you are admins. Expect it to be unprotected in the near future, but a point has to be made - it's not your user talk page, it's Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia is unhappy with you right now. --Golbez 20:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see I got your attention. Let me make some suggestions and statements:

Don't remove any comments from your talk page. You may not like Dreamguy, but apparently, we prefer to have his comments here, as they are useful.
If you are going through a tough time in your life - it sounds like you are - then maybe you should take a break. Or, just ignore the goings-on on your talk page and just edit elsewhere on the pedia. You haven't done this in a few days, so I fail to see why you keep coming back at this time.
In fact, I strongly suggest that you do this - don't touch your talk page for a while, just browse around the pedia. If you can't do that, then you're only coming here to fight over your talk page, and you're causing your own problems.
If you continue to remove comments from your talk page, it will be re-protected.

You are going through a tough time. That's sad, but we aren't supposed to kill our rules just because you had a horribly shitty Christmas. Sorry. --Golbez 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about all of this Gabriel, I know some people are being unfair to you, and all. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection will teach you that it isn't your page. --Golbez 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. If you continue to remove information from this page, it will be reprotected and your block extended as per the Arbitration Committee ruling against you. --Golbez 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information from your other user pages.

Gabriel,

I am disturbed to see you making edits as users Gabrielsimon, Khulhy, and Ketrovin. It may be that you are only editing those respective talk pages, but the content you are removing makes it look like you are trying to cover up your past, and the use of those user identities may violate the letter--certainly violates the spirit--of the Arbcom ruling against you. You are on notice that I am monitoring those pages and those accounts. --Craigkbryant 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, I have reverted your removal of the above material. This is not "your" talk page, in the sense that you own it and have absolute control over it. It is Wikipedia's talk page about your user account. Users in good standing are traditionally given a great deal of lattitude in maintaining their talk pages. You are not a user in good standing, and you are not going to prosper here until you accept that and understand the reasons why. You have been told by multiple admins on multiple occasions not to remove comments that are relevant to your conduct and important for documenting it. That includes my comment above. If you feel my comments should not be on this page, why not take the matter up with the involved admins? --Craigkbryant 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2

In fact, for your removal of information from previous accounts which you were told not to use, I am blocking you for 48 hours. --Golbez 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

go pick on someone else. i have niether the time nor thepatience to tolerate this.Gimmiet 09:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do we. I'm not going anywhere. --Golbez 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, if you're hinting that you're going to leave Wikipedia--I have no idea what else you could mean by being unwilling to "tolerate this"--perhaps that would be for the best. I've spent hours of my life on trying to bring you around to being a productive member of the community, and I can't see that it has had any result whatsoever. If you still think you're being "picked on," I don't think you can ever learn. Maybe it's time to recognize that Wikipedia simply isn't a good fit for you or what you want to do on the internet. I know you have your own web domain elsewhere; perhaps it would be best if you were to focus on creating the kind of content you want to create and posting it there. I simply don't see things changing for you on Wikipedia--the community is not going to suddenly turn 180 degrees and vindicate you. If you are not interested in changing, you need to go elsewhere and find a forum more suited to you.

--Craigkbryant 16:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, remember that you're under a very heavy probation. Annoying administrators is a bad idea. This part of your sentence is relevant (from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon#Remedies):

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)

So far you've collected one out of three admins necessary to block you for another month. Perhaps you should go re-read the reasons why you were banned in the first place and stop doing those right now so you won't annoy admins numbers 2 and 3. — Saxifrage | ☎ 16:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i told him whath appened lately, asked him to back off, and still he wont give me some goram space. Its not within myt rights toi remove material from MY talk page is it? well, geeze, then block other people who have removedm aterieal from thiewr talk page, go piss them off an pick on them.... why me now? why the hell do you have to add to the stress of what just happened.... fine, screw my priovacey, the fact is that my fri3end sumer just fuckinbg died last thursday. happy now? im miserable.Gimmiet 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your loss and don't mean to be unsympathetic, but this is irrelevant. This is also not the first time that you've used real life situations as an excuse for poor editing behavior. You've got to understand that further excuses are unlikely to be accepted by others. If it seems you're unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions, this will only serve to convince other people that you are unable to learn to edit within the accepted norms of the community. In regards to comments people make on your editing, you don't get privacy here at Wikipedia. We all live in glass houses. If you don't like this, you can make the choice to not edit. Friday (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for your loss and would like to extend my condolences. I have lost people dear to me and I know how hard it is. If you want some honest advice about your involvement with Wikipedia, I think you'd be doing your sanity and stress levels a big favor by taking a couple of weeks off to work through your grief without just aggrivating yourself further. Let me wish you comfort in a difficult time.--Craigkbryant 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One question

I have to ask you a question that may seem a bit rude, but after looking at some of your recent actions: have you learnt anything during your block? Seriously, I think it would be wise to learn from your past mistakes and be willing to coöperate with at least some of the things people are saying. You have, a number of times, informed DreamGuy that the amount of people angry with him shows some type of bad actions on his part. [1] Take a breath, and look around at your page. People have tried to come to mentor you to a more productive editor (again, let me reënforce my notion that you are a good contributor in my opinion, hell I don't think there is good or bad or in between in most cases, such is the eye of the beholder), and you have become very productive in light of articles such as Sculpey. Wouldn't you like to have positive feedback? Wouldn't you like to go a long period without being blocked? Wouldn't you like to not be treated like an IP? And, perhaps attain several contributions, and become an editor recognized for their talent? I assume yes. Let's step back and think of one thing first: you cannot, I repeat - cannot - beat your odds if you keep acting this way. DreamGuy, Khaosworks, SlimVirgin, Friday and whoever else are very productive editors on this site, and have attained very notable power on this site (i.e. all of which, with the exception of DreamGuy, are admins.) I am not crazy about some people on this site, but I have managed to survive 11 months without a block! 11 months?! Remember, I used to be the vandal that you told to cease and desist with the chaos. Now, it is the same thing here. Please do not continue to get upset, or upset, users who have obviously have attained more power than you have, and who continue to attract their supporters. Infighting will lead to the defeat of all, and considering the fact that you have attained little power since you have been here will only cause you to be, perhaps, blocked forever someday. I want to see you here, so I beg you to hear me. This is not the way, ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry for the snarkiness above. I pretty much agree and hope Gabriel takes this advice to heart. Only thing I disagree with is the notion of "power". I don't see that people on WP particularly have power, and indeed I don't think they should want power. We're here to work on an encyclopedia, not to enforce our will on others. What experienced editors frequently have isn't power, but the respect of the community. To me, that's the mark of a good editor, far moreso than, say, whether or not one has the admin tools. Friday (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respect leads to power, the reason I just talked that way is because I read (or should I say, re-read) my favorite book The Prince by Machiavelli. But, still, more users simply have more power than others, You more than I, Somebody like User:Raul654 more than yourself, and Jimbo, well, more than everyone. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask why I add "ö" symbols in words, I recently read that it is better, or at least, people used to do it. I don't know. It is kind of annoying, so I probably will stop. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Take care, ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Gabriel, the day you learn how to edit is the day I will stop "messing," as you put it, with your writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and block

I'm restoring your user talk page and blocking you for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon#Remedies. I've explained why you shouldn't be deleting these comments every way I know how, if you still don't understand the reason then perhaps it might be best for you to simply understand that you will be blocked when you do this. Bryan 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that half an hour after I put this block into effect, User:Prycon appeared and picked up a revert war that you were involved in over on Natasha Demkina. Prycon also shares similarities in his speech patterns with you in his edit summaries. Are you sock-puppeting as Prycon to evade the block? Bryan 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.... I think you need to get an IP check on that one... It sure looks like an obvious sockpuppet to me, and his arbcom decision gets him blocked for extended periods for any sockpuppeting while blocked, which is what this instance was if User:Prycon is him, which I'd bet money on. DreamGuy 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel just emailed me with: "i havnt done any socking ( i noticed your title on the natasha something page) please leave people alone, bothering me is better then botrhering random idiots becauset hey happen to AGREE with me. geeze, is there no end to the sutpidity here?", so that's a denial from his side, for what it's worth. And yes, given the suspicious timing, a sockcheck would be in order. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already requested a check on the arbitration page, don't know where else to bring something like this up. Prycon gave a non-answer when I asked him if he was Gimmiet over on his talk page. Bryan 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all

to all. this is MY talk page., you have no right to block me for anything here, vcasue its MINE, now piss off and go pick on someone else.Gimmiet 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors now have already explained to you that you lost the right to blank this page out once you piled up sockpuppet warnings and so forth. That stuff needs to stay here. DreamGuy 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont TOUCH my talk page unless your addingsomething NEW to it.Gimmiet 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i trey and i try and i do and i do for these assholes, and all i ever get is threats and stupidity out of the lot of you.... why the fuck cant anyone jus you who are treating me like dirt just GO AWAY.... jerks.Gimmiet 05:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you haven't been succeeding - or at least, you haven't been trying the right things. Several people have offered to help you archive this talk page instead of blanking it, your complete refusal to accept any of those offers suggests to me that your goal really is to remove as many references to your parole conditions and past misbehavior as possible. Also, you appear to be edit warring again. Please consider that you are the one acting like a jerk here, and that our reaction to your behavior is actually pretty restrained under the circumstances. Bryan 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all i ever asked you is to LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. i havnt done ANYTHING wrong in a loopongtime, unless you count the profanity whichyour breingoing outin me, so FUCK OFF! just leavem e and mine ALONEGimmiet 06:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't leave you alone, you're editing Wikipedia and causing all sorts of trouble in the process. Wikipedia isn't "yours", so you can't demand the right to do anything you like here - would you expect to be left alone if you wandered into someone's house and started rearranging the furniture in ways the house's inhabitants didn't like? If you really want to be left alone I suggest you stop editing. Bryan 06:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could always just archive it for you. Simple. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could archive some of it... the list of sockpuppets and some sort of general notice that he's on probation per arbcom ruling would still be needed just as general notice for anybody coming along to see based upon something else he wa involved in. DreamGuy 06:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected this page for right now in hopes of calming things down. I've also reverted back a little bit. Gabriel, if you're willing to stop with the profanity and rudeness and stop removing material from your page, I'll unprotect so you can edit your own talk page again. Friday (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the email, you shouldn't think of this as literally your page. It's Wikipedia's page, it's just for you. It's completely different from, say, your personal web page where you have full editorial control. Editors in good standing are granted wide lattitude with their talk pages. You are not an editor in good standing. Sorry, but you'll have a much easier time if you realize that. I'll unprotect now, but don't remove things from here again. Remember your probation - if people feel you're being disruptive, you can get another block of up to a month quite easily. Friday (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prycon

If, indeed User:Prycon is another sock puppet of Gabriel's, I would like to document the following edits:

Initial edit as Gimmiet to Natasha_Demkina. Revert as Gimmiet about two hours later. Second revert as Prycon about half an hour after that. He then reverts and reverts again the inclusion of NPOV tags.

Again, IF Prycon could be demonstrated to be a creation of Gabriel's, the above edits include two separate violations of his 1RR parole and the use of a sock puppet to circumvent a block.

Would three of the admins who have been involved in this case agree that it is time for another month-long block? --Craigkbryant 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Prycon is shown to be a sock puppet, yes, I would agree. I'm not sure that month long blocks are better than, say, week-long blocks for rehabilitation, but at this point I'm most interested in stopping the disruption. Friday (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the sockcheck confirms it, yes. Another month. I have given up hope of rehabilitation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree too. Both with a lengthy block and with the view that rehabilitation is unlikely; I'd just like to see him leave us alone at this point. Bryan 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I'm not sure Gavin understands that he can't keep doing this without continually getting blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm sorry for G's recent personal loss, but I don't think he's doing himself or Wikipedia any good by hanging around here this month. P.S. Another piece of (extremely) circumstantial evidence is that "Prycon" appears in Gabriel's fiction about "Gavin": [2] Gabriel has taken previous account names from his fiction. FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

I've protected your page again to keep you from blanking it. At this point I support another month's block, per the conditions of your parole, simply due to a demonstrated inability to edit within the community's expectations. Friday (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]