In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

The user has repeatedly started edit wars on multiple Wikipedia artiles, such as Regional power, Latin America, Developed country, Newly industrialized country, and others. The user practices boosterism promoting and changing any data related to Mexico. The user insists on reverting any edits to these articles, and behaves in an uncivil manner. He was recently blocked by Admin Kafziel for edit warring and breaking the WP:3RR on the article Newly industrialized country. He also received a warning for practicing sockpuppetry on that same article.

Desired outcome

The user should learn to propose changes before reverting or erasing content, to accept consensus, to respect other users, and to follow Wikipedia policies.

Description

See evidences below.

Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. [1] Reverted edition.(Article: Regional power)
  2. [2] Deleted content. (Article: Regional power)
  3. [3] Deleted content. (Article: Regional power)
  4. [4] Reverted edition. (Article: Developed country)
  5. [5] Reverted edition. (Article: Developed country)
  6. [6] Reverted edition. (Article: Developed country)
  7. [7] Reverted edition. (Article: Developed country)
  8. [8] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  9. [9] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  10. [10] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  11. [11] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  12. [12] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  13. [13] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  14. [14] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  15. [15] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  16. [16] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  17. [17] Deleted content. (Article: Developed country)
  18. [18] Reverted edition. (Article: Latin America)
  19. [19] Reverted edition. (Article: Latin America)
  20. [20] Reverted edition. (Article: Latin America)
  21. [21] Personal attacks. (Article: Latin America talk)
  22. [22] Deleted content. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  23. [23] Deleted content. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  24. [24] Deleted content. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  25. [25] Reverted edition. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  26. [26] Reverted edition. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  27. [27] Reverted edition. (Article: Newly industrialized country)
  28. [28] Personal attacks. (Article: Newly industrialized country talk)
  29. [29] Personal attacks. (User talk page: Limongi)
  30. [30] Long list of personal attacks. (User talk page: João Felipe C.S
  31. [31] The user was warned by an Admin for repeatedly reverts.
  32. [32] The user was blocked for breaking the WP:3RR.
  33. [33] The user was warned about practicing Sockpuppetry.
  34. [34] The user was blocked for edit warring. (Article: South America)
  35. [35] Personal attacks. (Article: North America talk) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limongi (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:CON
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. Disruptive editing
  6. WP:EW
  7. WP:NPA
  8. Sockpuppetry

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [36] Asked for help from an Admin.
  2. [37] Mediation by other user.
  3. [38] Tryed to reach a consensus on the article Latin America, resulting in personal attacks.


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Limongi 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jbmurray 07:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) The above has definitely been my experience dealing with this User with Latin America. Please see the history of that page, and also Talk:Latin America plus our respective user pages. Admittedly, it's fairly early in our interaction on this page, but so far he's shown few signs of changing his attitude. I recently left a message with User talk:Kafziel to seek ways to resolve this dispute, and then saw this RfC. Added: and rather than attempt to discuss the issues, this user deletes them from his User talk page.[39][40] --Jbmurray 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Added: For my further attempts to resolve the issue, mostly ignored by User:AlexCovarrubias, see also discussion at User_talk:Kafziel#Reverts_at_Latin_America and restored discussion at User_talk:Jbmurray#Recovering_discussion_deleted_by_AlexCovarrubias. --Jbmurray 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I note that Alex has just received a month-long block for some of his activity in relation to the above dispute.[41] As far as I'm concerned, therefore, I'm happy enough not to take this action further.[reply]
  3. I recently posted a request for civility in his talk page, only to see it deleted and ignored. I was not even aware of these disputes between Alex and other users, until I saw Alex attack João on the Talk Page of the Economy of Brazil article, for supposedly copying his work from Eonomy of Mexico[42], I went to see about his very serious accusation and found that João copied only the style of the Mexico article, a common practice in WP (João's edits to Economy of Brazil were very good). Later on the discussion to delete the BRIMC article Alex was again uncivil [43] this intervention led me to intervene on Alex's talk page, as well as on João's to ask civility from both sides, João thanked me and remained civil; Alex ignored my comments, deleted them, and seems to have become uncivil again.Chico 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. João Felipe C.S 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response[edit]

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.

I really don't have the time nor the intention of inverting my time to response to this childish accusations. All I have to say is, whoever look up into the history page of Developed country and Regional power will see the whole picture. Most of the "reverts" in this list correspond to unsourced information and boosterism practices (a word you learnt from me) [44] [45] [46] [47] [48], (this last link justifying the inclusion of Brazil as "If Mexico can be, Brazil can also") that sadly you and Joao Felipe have enganged into since the article Brazil was delisted as a Good Article [49], due to the fact it was inapropiately passed by you, a Brazil article contribuitor, something that must not be done. Since that very day I was accused of trying to "demerit" Brazil, and since that very day your boosterism crusade started.

Why don't you also paste the links to my friendly conversations with Joao Felipe? Or why don't you say that I even talked to him in Spanish because he said he couldn't understand English that well?[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Why don't you also paste the several times I tried to discuss his unsourced changes and asked for sources and the opening of a discussion in the template international power? [63] [64] After an admin. blocked the template [65] (I asked it to be protected to avoid his revert war [66]), instead of talking (that's the main idea behind any fully protected page) you and him decided to nominate the term for deletion [67] and since then, Joao and you haven't even commented in the template talk page. You didn't bother, you went directly to AfD cause you were unable to continue your edit war.

Why don't you also paste that my block for reverting his unsourced changes was descripted by an admin as "you can't revert as many times as you want EVEN if you RIGHT?" [68]. Why don't you paste that Joao was also blocked? [69] Why don't you paste your and Joao's real personal attacks? [70] [71] [72] . Why don't you paste that after I told admin. Kafziel that I tried to be friendly with Joao he delted ("archive" it, he said) "all the evidence" in his talk page? [73]

One of the Brazilian editors that signed says I "ignored his message and deleted it". I didn't ignored it, I read it, it bothered me because it was unfair since he didn't investigate the whole situation, his actions were hasty. And after all, Joao did the same with my comments and did he said a word about it?. Brazilian comaradery? [74] [75]

Also, it must be said that there is another editor reverting your changes in the article regional power and you didn't "report" him [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81].

Your changes do correspond to boosterism practices, mostly unrelated information just to "talk up" Brazil. I used to revert them because they were unsourced, and so just because of that I think I "earned an enemy". Also, could you stop stalking me? Because every single time I edit an article you are there. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Joao and Limongi have been repeatedly engaged in WP:POINT -making by repeatedly renominating the Brazil article at the Good Article list. Joao promoted the article as a GA without discussion, and he was a major editor of the article, a clear conflict of interest and a violation of GA standards. Once the problem was noticed, it was brought up for dicussion at GA/R, where a clear consensus of editors found that the article was WELL below standard, and it was delisted (see archived discussion: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18). The article has since been RENOMINATED for GA at least three times in the last week. After the first of these renominations, I left a LONG list of fixes that the article needed to be GA ready. These fixes have been entirely ignored (as well as the above GAR discussion, which listed many fixes as well) and the article continues to be relisted over and over at GAC, wasting the time of editors who must deal with removing it from the list. I have no idea if any past history exists between Alex and Joao&Limongi, I can only say that with regard to the conflict over the Brazil article, I can see no problems with Alex's behavior and instead see disruptive behavior by Joao & Limongi. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

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


Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion[edit]

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.

More