Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AlexCovarrubias2

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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs) has the unfortunate habit of reverting edits that he disagree with without an edit summary (sometimes even marking the reversion as a minor edit), or simply with a flat contradiction of the reason given in the editsummary of the previous edit. If editors start discussions at talk pages he often does not particpate in the discussion but continue to revert. If he does participate in the discussion he usually just states his opinion without engaging the arguments of the editors with whom he disagrees. When editors approach him at his talkpage asking why he reverts their edits or suggesting that he engage in discussion about a topic he rarely answers, but removes the notice without responding, even when questions are being posed. This is of course his right as he has asserted, but it is not the way dispute resolution should work in wikipedia. In short he is somewhat short of an actual collaborative spirit, and his communication with fellow editors is in need of improvement. Taken together with the fact that much of his editing is undertaken from a particular POV - the lack of discussion becomes even more problematic(his POV which is pretty much acknowledged on his user page is PRO-Mexican government, pro-NAFTA and pro-strong relations between Mexico and the US, he often edits to put the government, economy and industry of Mexico in a positive light).

There has been filed a previous RfC about his conduct - relating to content disputes between Brazilian nationalist editors and his Mexican nationalist POV- many of the same issues of reversion and failure to discuss were also mentioned there. No fault was found with AlexCovarrubias behavior by the uninvolved editor who commented in the first RfC/U

Users who endorse this summary:

• ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• RoadTrain (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Missionary (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Desired outcome

The outcome hoped for here is that the community explain to Alexcovarrubias that wikipedia is a collaborative project, that editing here requires collaboration and communication and that our dispute resolution process does not allow for revert/stonewall tactics.

Full disclosure by User:Maunus

I have been in disputes with AlexCovarrubias before - usually because I have disagreed with his representation of Mexico that I often find lacking in neutrality (or to use one of his own words I find them to be boosterism). He has in turn accused me of being anti-Mexican on several occasions (which Is kind of funny really - given that I study Mexico professionally and have lived there for several years and is married to a Mexican citizen). I have also been annoyed with AlexCovarrubias editing disputes with User:Corticopia who have been revert warring about the location of Mesoamerica relative to North, Central and South America. This RfcU however is about his lack of communication - not about our differing views on content.

Evidence of disputed behavior

• Diffs of users trying to resolve the issue at his talk page.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

• Diffs of AlexCovarrubias reverting goodfaith edits without stating reason in editsummary:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

• Diffs of Alexcovarrubias reverting while providing only a flat contradiction of previous argument:[22](this is just weird)[23][24]

• Diffs of AlexCovarrubias removing unanswered attempts at dispute resolution from his talkpage:[25][26][27][28][29]

• Diffs of Alexcovarrubias engaging in editwarring in topics regarding his POV:[30][31][32][33][34] (accusing another user of Brazilian boosterism because they have a source that disagrees that Mexico city is the worlds biggest city using mongabay.com as a reference instead of UN... WP:Kettle)[35] (using the word vandalism lightly)[36][37][38][39][40]

• For a good reason I can't provide diffs of AlexCovarrubias not participating in talkpage discussions, this can be verified by checking the talk pages where diffs are given for a reversion by AlexCovarrubias.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:EDITWAR - reverting without discussion
2. WP:DR - communcation is a necessary tool in dispute resolution
3. WP:AGF - reverting without reasoning does not assume good faith from other editors
4. WP:DISRUPT - the pattern of editing becomes disruptive when goodfaith attempts to dispute resolution are consistently left unanswered, and edits with which one disagrees are reverted without comment

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. Diffs of Maunus trying to resolve the issue at his talk page: [41] [42]
2. Diffs of Missionary trying to resolve the issue at his talk page: [43] [44]
3. Diffs of RoadTrain trying to resolve the issue at his talk page: [45] [46]
4. Diffs of other users: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. Diffs of AlexCovarrubias removing unanswered attempts at dispute resolution from his talkpage:

[52][53][54][55][56]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Missionary (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
3. RoadTrain (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Response

Harassment

After almost six years of editing and producing graphics for Wikipedia, I find myself with no energy nor in the mood to fight for my rights. Events in the past had left me with little hope for justice in this project. Sorry, I'm just being honest =(. I need to add that recently, when I'm asked to "give an explanation" of an edit in an accusatory way, almost with ownership behaviour, I just delete the message from my talk page (something that is usual for me after reading a message) but then I stop editing in the "conflicted" article. Like I said, I recently feel tired about how certains things are done in this project...

Ok so, an administrator by the name User:Maunus have had conflicts with me over content and references in some articles in the past. Articles about topics in which he identify himself as an expert in his editor page, something that always made me feel like he had somekind of a ownership problem. However those editorial conflicts had been solved, but I always felt a non necessary intromission of his part in some of the articles I edit after our conflicts were solved. In plains words, it seemed like he was "watching" my edits in order to provoke me. However, this was always ignored by me as merely a perception of my part. This conflicts were weeks ago.

Today, another user found offensive that I erased a message left in my talk page and made me notice it [57]. Well then of all the sudden and without being involved nor asked to get involved, User:Maunus wrote a defamatory and missrepresenting note in that discussion [58], labeling my actions as "standard" and threatening me to fill a RfC. Then he continued to harass me by almost "challening me" to proceed with the RfC if I had nothing to worry about [59]. That was not only uncalled for, but like I said, generalizing my actions as something wrong. Needless to say that I have the right to delete almost any content left in my talk page [60] and that I always delete the messages that I have already read.

Maunus' actions gave proof that he's got a personal interest against myself, given his past conflicts with me, now evidently by his meddling in a two-sided conversation. His actions were not in good-faith. This is not the first time I notice he has been watching my talk page, I just ignored that as merely my perception. His actions were uncalled for, defamatory and inflammatory. I now officially feel harassed and threatened by his actions and false sayings, which make me feel highly uncomfortable and discourage me from contributing. Needless to say that this confirms that I'm being watched in a not healthy way.

I just want other administrators to take notice on this and inspect the recent conversation in my talk page. It is not healthy to harass other editors based purely in what I can only call resentment. Thanks for reading this.

Comment - To whoever is reading this and didn't believe I am being WATCHED and HARASSED in a no healthy way by administrator Maunus, here's more recent evidence. I'm currently having a discussion with a user and ALL OF THE SUDDEN Maunus appears in a Wikiquette alert I CREATED [61] to TRY TO GET THE USER TO COMMENT IN THIS PAGE (something the user ultimatedely did). How Maunus find out about my discussion, and most importantly ABOUT THE WIKIQUETTE ALERT I CREATED? BY WATCHING MY ACTIONS, THAT IS HARASSMENT. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
2.  nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to AlexCovarrubias

I am not watching your contributions, I am watching the page Mexico which is where you were now engaging the same behavior that we have asked you to stop (reverting goodfaith edits with no editsummaries and not engaging in discussion). As an administrator I am also watching the WQA notice board and so I noticed your complaint. I am also not harrassing you. I have a problem with your editing behavior that I would like to get solved. It is not harrassment to use the appropriate venues to adress problematic behavior by other editors. When I see that other users have similar problems I will of course notify them of the place where this problem is currently being discussed.This is all I have done in this case. The fact that you choose to accuse me of harrassment instead of choosing to listen to the problems that I and several other editors have now alerted you to, is actually worrying because it shows such a fundamental lack of goodfaith from other editors that it is difficulæt to see how you can ever be expected to work collaboratively with people with whom you may at times have disagreements. Your accusatoin of harrassment is based on the fact that I have approach two other editors who had were asking you to discuss your edits ratherthan mindlessly revert without discussion, and suggested that we use and RfC to solve this problem. This is not harrassment, but one of the main venues of resolution for exactly this kind of conflict. At this point I asking you to reconsider your accusations of harrassment, and I reccommend that you strike that part of your statement because it is frankly offensive to be accused of harrassment simply for having followed the policy for dispute resolution when the fact that dispute resolution had to be sought in the first place to was because you left us no other option for adressing the issue since you completely refused to engage in communication about the problems.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stating that you have not had problems in the past is ridiculous given the previous RfC and the fact that four editors are saying that they have had problems with you in the past. I am not the only one filing this RfC. This is a long standing pattern of behavior that you have been made aware was problematiuc numerous times but that you have chosen to deny the existence of. As for your continued claims of harrassment: You have made all of the editors endorsing this RfC feel uncomfortable editing here, so by your own standard you have been harassing us. You could have avoided this RfC by recognizing that reverting without discussion is a bad idea - instead you continued to "harrass" editors all over the place, untill there was no other venue of addressing the problem left than rfC/U.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Maunus

First of all, dispute resolution is WHEN ANY OF THE PARTIES ASK FOR IT. No party in this discussion asked for your help. You just got involved because it was ME who those two users had a problem with. EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOUR CONTRIBUTION LIST AND SEE THAT YOU DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN 3RD PARTY DISCUSSIONS. Just this once, because you have a personal interest against me for past disputes. In plain words, you're just using those persons to comment here and somehow continue to give a false impression about my person. I don't know your ultimate motivation, but that IS HARASSMENT because you're making me feel unconfortable with editing here. That's harassment accordingly with WP:HARASSMENT.

I've been actively editing Wikipedia for years and I never had such problems for you to characterize me as a "not assuming good faith editor". You're also willingly omitting the details of my discussion with those editors, especially with the last one (in that case, no revert without discussion was involved) trying to give the false idea that, whatever the issue was, I was acting wrong. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question to Participants

I can see that there is a consensus that this RfC was "poorly handled" by the filers. I would like to ask you to be more explicit about that. How should we have handled the problem? How should we have adressed the issue in a less confrontational way? We are four people who have tried to solve the problem by posting in a friendly tone to Alex talk page. He deleted the posts without answering and continued with the problematic behavior of reverting goodfaith edits without participating in talkpage discussion and often without editsummaries or with edit summaries that simply contradict the previous argument. How would you have handled it if you cam into contact with an editor who consistently acted like that? I am asking becaus I honestly don't see what I could have done differently.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First, nobody asked you to get involved, so don't use the "dispute resolution" agrument here (which is ONLY valid when the third party is ASKED to get involved, which never happened). You were watching me and suddently stepped in (that's harassment). Very importantly, your approach to the discussion was not to solve anything, but to engage the other user to dismiss his own approach to me [62]. Your attitude was not friendly, your attitude was confrontational, threatening and challenging (quoting you "If you don't think that you have exhibited any bad behaviour and that you have complied with the guidelines for dispute resolution then an RfC wouldn't really be much of a threat wuld it?" [63]). You never TALKED TO ME, you only addressed the other user to join forces. That's acting like a gang to bully me. Your only motivation behind this was to fill this RfC due to our past disputes (months ago before that user had a problem with me, which shows your resentment), so it seemed like the pefect time for you to join forces with the other user.

And you're falsing info again. Seriously, don't you have ethics? This is disgusting from a so-called professor. You're rampantly lying just to make your point. The other parties did not posted friendly as you say. Some left messages in a demanding, serious and uppish tone. In fact, only RoadTrain was friendly and polite [64], and after reverting one more time, because it was my right to do so (since I didn't agree with the source) I just stopped editing.

As another administrator already told you, it is my right to answer or not, to delete or not any messages left in my talk page. That's how I choose, in my right, to respond. That won't change as it is my right to do that. And as I already told you several times (but you ignore that willingly, and decide to repeat your lie), I delete almost ALL messages after I read them. I don't choose to delete the messages "I don't like" as you try to give the impression. That being said, are you gonna respond to why are you watching me? Why are you meddling in MY discussion with other parties? Why you DO NOT do that with other users but ME? There's clearly a personal interest in me, due to the fact that you are still angry because your past disputes with me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you and I are in a dispute. You are also in a dispute with four other editors who have asked you to explain why you keept reverting their edits, yuou have not been willing to discuss with any of us. That is the dispute. This is the way to resolve it. So plæease stop that ridiculous blather about me butting in to a discussion I wasn't part of. I had had a bunch of problems with trying to communicate with you, I needed to contact the other users who had the same problems with you in order to file an RfC and rfC is the part of the dispute resolution process that is aimed at problematic editors. YOU are a problematic editor because you edit from a POV and refuse to discuss your edits or justify your reversions of other editors goodfaith edits. I have to adress this because I am working in the areas related to Mexico just like you and I need to be able top do that without some nationalist referting my edits and thenm refusing to discuss. How the hell am I supposed to edit when you run around enforcing your POV and afterwards refuse to discuss? How are any of the three editors endorsing this RfC plus Underlyin Ik who has had the same experience with you supposed to edit? You are obstructing the process of collaborative editing and trying to make it looks at if it is the rest of the world that is doing something wrong. You have a right to delete your talkpage messages without answerring. I have a right to drag you into an RFC and to contact other editors that have had problems with your lack of will to cooperate and commuincate, so PLEASE tone down the harrassment crap here, because it is not going to fly. You are the one harrassing editors who refuse to conform to your idea about how wikipedia's picture of Mexico needs to be all rosy colored. The reason I am not dragging other editors to RfC is because they tend to COMMUNICATE and respond when I post notices to their discussion pages and they tend to DISCUSS their reversion on the article TALKPAGES. Your behavior is the problem here - stop trying ot make it look otherwise. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More lies again. You and I were not in a dispute (for months!) at the time you got involved in our discussion, without being asked by any of the 2 parties (again, dispute resolution card is not gonna work). Maunus, our last content dispute ended December 5 2010 [65]. After that, we didn't have editorial conflicts. Then you suddenly got involved on February 11 2011 [66], more than 2 months after our last dispute. So clearly, we weren't in a dispute. If after months of not having a dispute with me, you want to frame it as if "we were in a dispute", that clearly shows either:

1. Your angriness and resentment against me, or
2. That you're (again) blatantly liying to try to reinforce your point

So, basicly you were watching me (for months after we finished our content dispute), saw the perfect opportunity to step in and tried (and did) join "forces" with the other editor, as I explained above in my previous post. The links I provided clearly show your behavior and a personal motivations behind all this. I must add that it's very shameful to try to deceive whoever is gonna read this by saying lies, just to win a point.

You have changed your arguments as they are proven to be false. You've went from "I only wanted to help", to "I stepped in to provide dispute resolution" (not valid because DR occurs when any of the parties ask a 3rd opinion, and it was demonstrated that you were not addressing us to solve anything, but to engage only the other user in a RfC) and finally "I asked the other editors to join me because you and I were in a dispute", which is clearly another lie for the arguments I provided above. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have said from the very outset that I have a history of problematic editing with you. I had to wait two months to get it resolved because IT REQUIRES TWO PERSONS TO FILE AN RFC. You were engaging in the same problematic pattern during those two months and we had not resolved the dispute you had just ignored my messages and then left the topic for while (with your preferred version in place). Yes I did have resentiment because of your past behavior and the fact that you had refused to even discuss it or acknowledge that it was a problem. I have more resentment towards you now because you continuously accusie me of lying of harassasing you when all I have done is to follow to the letter the process describe in our policy of dispute resolution. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never said that I only wanted to help. At least not you. I wanted to help the editors who like me were having trouble with your stonewalling tactics. Two of these editors have endorse this RfC, one has filed his own statement. yOu completely fail to understnd what dispute resolution is and how it is done. Dispute resolution is necessary when a single editor consistently misbehaves to the detriment of the project and refuses to recognize it. That is what you did, and there were no other way for the five editors who were affected by this behavior to adress it other than going here. If you had simply responded saying "OK, I'll start to use talkpages and editsummaries instead of just reverting" then NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick of all your lies. Trying to frame it as if I was having troubles with 4 different users at that time and at the same time is another sick and disgusting lie. Everybody can see that only 2 users supported your summary: Missionary and RoadTrain. The only dispute then currently active as February 11, 2001 was with Missionary. The other "dispute" had ended (RoadTrain, December 2010 [67]). Also in regard of Maunus and I past dispute, repeating that "we were having troubles" won't make it true. Our disputes have ended 2 months ago Maunus, as proven in my previous post. Our content dispute ended because I provided the appropiate references to sustain the info I added at Indigenous peoples of Mexico [68]. The references provided verification for the claims, so there's nothing anybody could do about it. It doesn't mean it was "my prefered version". It means is the appropiate and sourced version.

If you're talking about the ethnicity template inclusion at the article Mexico, I did not continue to edit because it was actually a content dispute between YOU and Rahlgd at Template:Ethnicity in Mexico as clearly shown in the history of the article here[69]. It was not appropiate for me to join (and I actually did not care for a new problem). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Retreating

I will not participate more in this RfC. I don't see how anything good can come from it at this point, it has escalated completely out of whack. I realize that the responsibility is partially mine although I do not believe that I am giuilty of harrassment, lying or misrepresenting AlexCovarrubias actions as he says. I think he is so angry with me at this point that anything I say or do will be construed by him in sthis way. Therefore there is no hope of achieving the original goal of the RFC: getting him to understand that other editors need him to change his behavior pattern of reverting without discussion, not using editsummaries when he reverts non-vandalism and refusing to communicatie with editors on his talkpage. From now on I will voluntarily placemyself under an interaction topic ban with AlexCovarrubias, I will not post to his talkpage, I will not make ANI post's regarding his conduct. If he reverts my edits or if I disagree with any edits of his I will not revert but start a discussion at the article's talkpage immediately to involve other editors in the topic. I sincerely hope that AlexCovarrubias will extend me the same courtesy that I am now offering him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I have to say that I do recognize and admire your hard work, especially in the article Mesoamerica. But I also think that sometimes you act with a degree of ownership in articles where information about the indigenous cultures are involved. Maybe motivated by the fact that you claim to be an expert in the subject. Well, even experts do make mistakes and one expert POV doesn't mean is the right one, not necessarily. It is very obvious we both let the heat of the dispute get us. I'm still mad and I still believe what I stated above in the whole RfC. However I do believe in conciliation and I do believe than between two good editors some sort of peace can be worked out after such a heated process. So I am all in for peace and I sincerely hope for past disputes to be forgotten. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view

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 GoogolplexForce

It seems to me that both parties are in the wrong somewhat... Maunus hasn't really responded to Alex's accusations, except to make counter-accusations (and not terribly politely, but that is disputable), and Alex hasn't responded to discussions.

Comment - I have replied now. As I stated in my first and original message acussing Maunus of harassment, I didn't have the energy to defend myself. I now have it and therefore, I've provided some diff and proof of my objections. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GoogolplexForce (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Pi

It is clear that AlexCovarrubias has been reverting edits in a manner which is unsatisfactory, and which is somewhat beneath the manner anticipated of an experianced editor. Also I think that removing messages from his own talkpage is somewhat inconsiderate and unconventional. However, if AlexCovarrubias does stop participating in the edit disputes when other users post on his message space, I don't think that the problem is sufficient to warrant any further sanction. AlexCovarrubias has clearly been told of the relevant policies on edit warring, and I do believe he's a good faith editor. I therefore believe that the actions of Maunus both in making the post on AlexCovarrubias's talkpage that he complained about in his responce, and in pursuing him here, are disproportionate. In principle I support the complaint as a valid one in so far as it identifies AlexCovarrubias2's poor form on a particular issue, but I critise the way those who initiated this RfC have handled the affair

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pi (Talk to me! )

Outside view by Fiftytwo thirty

In my limited experience with AlexCovarrubias, mostly at the Latin America page, I have witnessed some of the problems stated above, but I am adding my own opinion down here because I do not fully agree with the rationales above. This diff was given above where I asked a question on Alex's talk page; while I might have bit Alex, I think it would have been good practice to give a response, even one as simple as "I made a mistake" or "I have a source" or "Let's see if we can get any participation on the talk page." Despite this, I think it is completely acceptable to remove messages from one's talk page en masse for housekeeping. Probably much more troubling is the pattern of reverting edits, particularly ones with major changes, statistics changes, and sourced changes without any summary at all. Alex is a good-faith editor, but I think that he should explain his actions more. I do not see that he initiates many talk page threads, and most of the comments in talk pages seem to be "I support the view above" with little rationale. Similarly, all too many edits are marked as minor. I would like to see that Alex reads and applies WP:FIES and WP:MINOR and errs on the side of caution with both. Frankly, while I think neither editor is trying to harass the other, neither Maunus nor Alex is being particularly WP:CIVIL. Both should take a step back, and not take this issue personally. Calling his edits vandalism is a bit much, though there are many instances of unsubstantiated additions, removals, and changes. Likewise, some boosterism for one's own country is expected, and I don't think this would be a problem if Alex is willing to openly discuss his editing.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Underlying_lk

I'm not a party to this dispute, but in dealing with the subject of this Rfc I have encountered many of the same problems already experienced by the three initiators of this Rfc. Alex seems to think that whoever edits an article in any way related to his beloved Mexico without being a self-declared "patriot Mexican" like himself is only trying to tarnish his country's reputation. He thinks he's on a mission to address the misconceptions the rest of the world has about Mexico, or as he states in his user page "I want the world to really know my country, the present-day Mexico, especially because Hollywood cliches tend to give people a very bad, totally wrong idea of what Mexico is". This line of thinking of course cannot and does not conform with one of the most important Wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV. Failure to conform to this "patriot Mexican" point of view will lead to accusations of being a biased, Mexico-hating racist, etcetera. Talk page discussions with the user, when they do happen, usually don't go beyond similar accusations.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LK (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion of Tijfo098

As a matter of style, writing in bold caps can be extremely irritating to your readers.

1. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaum75

I've read over this RfC and have had little past involvement with both editors: Maunus performed a GA review on an article i was editing, (Oaxaca), and AlexCovarrubias and I worked on a (proven) SPI case that involved the sock of a banned user moving of Mexican state articles; However I believe I am not a party to this current dispute.

Firstly, I think the manner in which those opening this RfC have handled the situation have put all parties involved on the offensive, which naturally escalates tension instead of leading to a calm resolution; I also agree with GoogolplexForce's opinion that one party's accusations here are only being responded to by accusations by the other party (IMHO, not constructive). With regard to editing style: Maunus, who I respect as having a wealth of knowledge about Latin America, often edits and interacts with other editors (in my opinion) in a "dry", "mechanical" method. While nothing is wrong with that per say, as this is how often the Academic world functions, it can be interpreted as standoffish behavior by outsiders. That said, the editors involved could make better use of the "Edit summary" line when committing edits, even if its a revert. I can also understand how Alex may feel he is being stalked, especially since he and Maunus have had their differences in the past. Since obviously there are hard feelings between both editors, reviewing the "edits" of each other, even if in an attempt to "help" another editor, is not productive.

Both editors seem to be productive members with the best intentions of improving the encyclopedia. However not everyone's personalities "mesh", here or in real life. Perhaps the best way to handle this would be for both editors to avoid interacting with one another. If either party came across an edit made by the other that they found questionable, it could be referred to a uninvolved 3rd party admin, for them to review.

The issue of bolding has been raised...having been part of discussions in WP's Israel-Palestine topic area (an area notorious for conflict) bolding is often used to add emphasis, not to "yell" or create disruption, although I can understand how it is interpreted that way.

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

You can see an AFD where Maunus has very strong opinions, and inserts his own ideas and opinions to override reliable sources and insert concepts from one particular author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination). He argues very strongly that the dictionary should not be used to settle the meaning of a word, but the book that he holds in high regard should be used. He argues that a word used since at least 1955 is a neologism. He nominates the article for deletion because he disagrees with the name of the article. Any disagreement over the title should have been handled on the talk page but instead he nominated the article for deletion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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.

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.