Before entering comments here, give him until the end of tomorrow ( his day off) to write an apology to each user, please. 205.200.236.34 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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. - 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. The top note was written by my fiancee, who 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)
I am sure the questioned editor is in good faith. He violated, in my opinion, the assumption of good faith when he accuses other editors to be sockpuppeteers without any evidence, or when he accuses editors that try to solve the issue of having been bribed. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I had thought that we were making progress here, there was some useful discussion taking place at Talk:Gliese 581 c. However GabrielVelasquez still seems to be falling back into his old habits of attack the editor. [1] Maybe I was too willing to trust this editor and shouldn't have bothered interacting in the first place. Icalanise (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure "a good refresher course on how to be polite" would sort anything out. It's interesting what a search of the archives of WP:ANI archives brings up. See this archive: notice any repeating patterns? Conspiracy theory (whether it's a cabal of trinitarians suppressing nontrinitarian beliefs, or a cabal of scientists suppressing anything to the effect that an exoplanet is nonhabitable), check. Attacking other editors, check. Going back further, the same pattern of attacks, POV-pushing, and efforts to talk to this user to resolve the issues failing. I don't particularly care how knowledgeable or skilled this editor is, his core attitudes towards other editors appear to be totally at odds with being a member of a collaborative project, and I doubt a "refresher course" would do much to change that. Icalanise (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As this talk page, among others, demonstrates, we have taken every possible civil step to let the user apologize and help him behave more properly. We tried to contact him and talk with him; we kindly requested third-party attention with wikiquette alerts and now in RfC. RfC seemed at first to help a bit: let's see. If these do not succeed, I think there is only ARBCOM. And keep in mind that I'm still trying to be as fair and indulgent as possible, since I'm waiting for clear-cut attacks or new long lists of disruptive behaviour to do that. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"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.
Nicely worded to be phrased as yet another attack on me and misrepresenting what I am saying. The point I was making here was that whenever anyone tried to argue a case from the facts in the paper, who actually seemed to read the papers in question, or displayed any sense of trying to use scientific principles to argue a point (i.e. displaying scientific literacy), you reacted to by accusing them of being damage control, sockpuppets, etc. I was not trying to portray myself as perfect. (However can I take this point as yet another attack? Hmm...) This was a general statement about my observations of a trend about the types of editors you choose to make these attacks on.
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]).
There are ways to argue a point and you seem completely incapable of doing so without accusing the editors who disagree with you of being "damage control" or sockpuppets. Great, you got a long and detailed caption on an image, at the cost of an administrator's noticeboard posting, a Wikiquette alert and now an RFC. Do you actually think that is a normal result of editor interactions? Same with your nontrinitarianism edits that got you in trouble the first time. I suppose if you feel making things unpleasant for people is a good thing, you find all this admin stuff a reasonable price to pay. Then again, in general society people who enjoy making things unpleasant for others are not generally well-regarded for doing so.
I certainly was not belligerent in the example, there is a spin being put on directness that so it is instead interpreted as agressive.
You came out and directly accused editors who disagreed with you of sockpuppetry, of being "damage control" or working for a team of scientists to distort the article's commentary. This is not being direct, this is conspiracy theory. Likewise, you characterised a paper that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal as being written by "fools" who "assumed we are stupid and would swallow whatever they publish to hipe this planet as habitable". This is not being direct, this is a conspiracy theory. I post a comment on your insolation table and point out (with a reference) that a planet's eccentricity is not well known and you just characterise it as fantasy and uselessness [2]. It seems from where I'm sitting that your modus operandi is that when someone disagrees with you, don't read their arguments but post an attack. There is a difference between attacks and direct arguments.
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.
I'm not saying they should be allowed to get an automatic pass. My point is that they shouldn't have to deal with a complete lack of civility, baseless accusations and having to deal with ridiculous conspiracy theories. Icalanise (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest consideration is made of the contributions of 24.77.204.120, who seems to be the same person as GabrielVelasquez - IP address in Winnipeg, same interests, same style of attacks (on Serendipodous, Ckatz and User:NuclearVacuum). Similarly 198.163.53.10 shows evidence of having been used by GabrielVelasquez (though it does not seem to have been solely used by him). It appears that GabrielVelasquez used these IP addresses before he signed up for a Wikimedia account, and has occasionally used them since when he forgets to log in (I do not believe there is any evidence of deliberate sockpuppetry). These IP addresses indicate that even before GabrielVelasquez signed up here, he was displaying his characteristic tendency to attack editors who disagree with him, in many cases branding them as "fascists". Icalanise (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)