The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

• GabrielVelasquez (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:GabrielVelasquez has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour, making very hard for editors to proficiently discuss and edit pages of which User:GabrielVelasquez is interested, like Gliese 581 c. See below for evidence. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

User:GabrielVelasquez should follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, or stop editing if he cannot avoid such behaviour.

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:GabrielVelasquez has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour, making very hard for editors to proficiently discuss and edit pages of which User:GabrielVelasquez is interested, like Gliese 581 c. Polite attempts by several editors to contact him and discuss his behaviour have been met with derision, followed by personal attacks or ignored and deleted. See below for evidence. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the issue has been described and discussed on Wikiquette alerts before being RFC'ed. The (short but enlightening) discussion there can be helpful. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Sockpuppetry accusations: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. Examples of attacks to editors and "conspiracy theory" behaviour: [8] [9] [10][11] [12] [13] [14] (note subsequently [15] despite his demands that other editors do not criticise the sources)
3. Older behaviour that may be relevant:[16] (see summary) [17]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:NPA

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

1. Attempt by User:Icalanise: [18]
2. Attempt by User:Cyclopia: [19]
3. Attempt by User:Bwilkins: [20]
4. Attempt by User:Marhawkman: [21]
5. Attempts by User:J. Langton: [22] [23]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. Contacts by User:Icalanise dismissed as "cowing": [24]
2. Attempt by User:Bwilkins answered with accusations of bribery: [25]
3. Attempt by User:Cyclopia ignored [26] and leading to further attacks: [27]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Cyclopia (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Icalanise (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. After reading Talk:Gliese_581_c, it's kind of obvious. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I did eventually find it possible to discuss issues intelligently with Gabriel Velasquez, but it was certainly harder than it should have been. J. Langton (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

(copied over) I find it odd that I was invited to comment here, regardless I see this as an attempt to get my account blocked in the long run if I don't put a rein on my frustrations and ease up on my "restrained" and unrestrained incivility, and other issues. I am a reasoning, reasonable, and rational person (sure you thought the 3R were something else!); So I will give an honestly review of the steps that led to this. Having said that, bear in mind I have to be fair to myself and not let exagerations and diff-spinning go unaddressed. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "IT IS ODD," please; "I find it odd" is a musing tone, let's start by reading tones appropriately. I am taking my time with this as I keep getting distracted as a I back track, and now modem problems. ... my fiancee, ... quaintly councels me to remember "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinager." - ohplease; and I intend to keep typing at the top until the day is done. oh, so this is the wrong place, then I'll copy this there. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mentioned here: Wikiquette alerts

• (1)"persistently attacking other editors at Talk:Gliese 581 c who disagree" - the use of the term attack is here is subjective and biased. And as far as disagreement with me is concerned, demanding that policy is followed, references are quoted, a perspectives are represented, is hardly "anyone who disagrees" with me.
• (2) "no possible way the planet can be anything other than a runaway greenhouse Venus-analogue" - in truth it seems to me I am the only who cares that this documented scientific perspective is respresented in the article. things related to this get deleted when I turn my back so to speak.
• (3)I won't argue the sockpuppet slurs and suspicions, I admit it was the wrong venue.
• (4)"or being "damage control" for various teams of scientists (who he seems to believe want to fool the public into thinking this planet is habitable for their own nefarious purposes)" - I think my paraphases were taken out of context and my points about published self-interests are factual. I think "nefarious" is an exaggeration, ludicrous exaggeration. as I said, what was in the article made Selsis et al read like "we formulate that this planet is habitable, but only you imagine that it is a perfect black body (which plants are not) and only if you imaging that it has no atmosphere (which habitable planets do)." There are glaring contraditions between some of the references and I still believe scientists who speculate for their own selfish interests/benefit should not be quoted in the forefront of the article or sections.
• (5) [28] - this diff looks taken out of context, and on its own a request (albeit defensive) to be left alone.
• (6) "His belligerent/paranoid attitude towards scientifically-literate editors is making the editing process on the article in question, and other articles about planets located close to the habitable zone (e.g. [29]) needlessly unpleasant." - nicely worded to flatter and support the perfect accuracy of the writer. I keep my own records of insolation for extrasolar planets that may be "comfortable/habitable/survivable" and I refute dubious edits on the subject, yes. but belligerent that's completely a subjective tone interpretation and exageration I think. It is well that I make things "unpleasant" for editors like that if in the end things really do need clarification or amendment and are improved (see Orbit diagram discussion at Gliese 581 c [30]). If I am left to interpret some thing written equivocally unclear, I can't be accused of mearly impedance if I make the wrong interpretation, at the fault of equivocal statements, "this is in error" [31] and I certainly was not belligerent in the example, there is a spin being put on directness that so it is instead interpreted as agressive. However literate the editor they don't get an automatic pass on any edit, and I'll continue to challange their unclear and/or dubious edits. My being civil to an editor and my letting them get away with murder where I see it, are two seperate things, and this example is being falsely used.
• (7) [32] & [33] - This are defensive, and as I told Bwilkins it is easy to see someone as coming at you instead of to you.
• (8) [34] was address by me: [35] & [36]
• (9)

...
Issues mentioned on this page:

• (1)
• (2)
• (3)

...
Outside views:
by Logical Premise

• (1)
• (2) "oversensitive" ... what is "a touch aggressive" but busy exagerated to sound offensive.
• (3) attack page... it turns out this user had a subpage dedicated to disparaging users he didn't like and I was named in it, so I see his "oversensitive" exagerations as worthless.
  

by Explodicle (T/C)

• (1)

by Arknascar44 (talk · contribs)

• (1)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Logical Premise[edit]

I first interacted with this user at a subpage for an article another author was working on, after GabrielVelasquez contacted me regarding the article. I thought he wanted some recommendations, so I made them here. The response I got, diff, was a little brusque and upsetting. Maybe I'm being oversensative, but this editor strikes me as being just a touch too aggressive and conflates "disagreeing with him" as "wrong". I don't know if all the issues in this RfC brought up by others are accurate, but my comment would be that GabrielVelasquez needs to spend a bit more time thinking about how his words and tone might be taken by others.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Arknascar44[edit]

There are certainly some doubts as to the civility of GabrielVelasquez, and I will admit that the editor does make some personal attacks. However, I see no violation of AGF (hear me out :)). The editor obviously means well; their criticisms focus mainly on the improvement of the articles they edit. Obviously, personal attacks are not the proper way to resolve any dispute, but there is no doubt in my mind that GabrielVelasquez is (albeit irrationally and improperly) trying to improve Wikipedia. While he does deserve some credit for this, he must understand that calm words will solve the problem much more rapidly. Cheers, and I hope this helped.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ( arky ) 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Explodicle[edit]

I first interacted with Gabriel at another user's talk page, and have since worked with him to re-write an article that was deleted. He's a great researcher and has a lot of potential, but he has come into conflict with other editors repeatedly. I found out about this RfC after I questioned his calling Logical Premise a "prima donna" two days ago.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

GabrielVelasquez makes good faith attempts to improve the project. However, he needs to spend more time thinking about how his words and tone might be taken by others so as to avoid repeatedly coming into conflict.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.