Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AlexCovarrubias2

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: 17:50, 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:39, 12 February 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GoogolplexForce (talk) 00:21, 13 February 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)

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.