Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RicoCorinth

Case Filed On: 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer:


 * Policy and guideline violations (e.g., WP:A, WP:NPA, WP:AGF ) and misinterpretations of them (e.g., WP:Undue weight);
 * Repeated reversions;
 * Unpersuasive justifications from editors that just want to do whatever they want, and realize that any stupid argument advances their cause -- or no discussion in the case of summarily removed tags;
 * Material with impeccable sources removed, with unsourced opinion as the justification;


 * Refusal to follow POV procedures/process ('specificity');
 * Ownership issues;
 * Edits that are more than what they appear to be (e.g., little deletions in the middle of massive edits);
 * Edits that are declared to be one thing, but are another (e.g., a move that is really a deletion);...

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I've emailed a couple of administrators, but neither of them replied to my requests for administratorship.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy? 11:46, February 8: I explain the tag on the article talk page. 19:29, February 8: Jance deletes the tag. 19:30, February 8: Jance posts on the article talk page, "I removed the tag. Please state where there is unsourced material." 20:53, February 8: Argyriou adds unsourced material. 21:05, February 8: I add a tag to the unsourced material. 21:23, February 8: Jance deletes the tag. 23:07, February 8: Argyriou deletes a dispute tag — that makes, "this source's reliability may need verification" — from the article. 10:17, February 9: I ask Argyriou to "please cite a source for [the unsourced] addition" on his talk page. 11:59, February 9: I post on the Argyriou user talk page that Argyriou's summary deletion of a dispute tag fit the definition of vandalism. 12:02, February 9: Argyriou deletes my post, in an edit in which he replies to another post, without mentioning the sanitization in the edit summary. 12:07, February 9: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RicoCorinth#Go_away. Argyriou adds insult to my user talk page.] 16:16, February 9: Argyriou deletes my post from the Argyriou user talk page, calling me a "troll" in the edit summary. How's a body to function in such an environment?
 * Answer:
 * Help in presenting my thoughts in the issues.
 * I characterized something as "vandalism", but Wikipedia appears to have its own definition of vandalism . The editor was pissed, but I suspect the editor was more pissed off that I was directing his attention to his repeated violations of official Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Still, after reading WP:Vandalism, I want to make sure I don't do that again.
 * More importantly: I don't know what to do when people won't follow the most important rules, but are quick to cite them when it suits them.
 * 11:36, February 8: I tag the article, because a ton of unreferenced prose has been added to the article this year.
 * Argyriou's edits inject POV by deleting sourced content, and by altering it, radically changing its meaning — with no discussion.


 * Within a massive change, of Argyriou's was a little edit that was covered up by the massive change.
 * The original content was sourced, citing a peer-reviewed book published by Yale University Press. Argyriou's edit spins the prose, turning part of it around 180 degrees from its original meaning.


 * This is what it said before Argyriou's changes:
 * HOA boards of directors operate outside constitutional restrictions because the law views them as business entities rather than governments . Moreover, courts accept the legal fiction that all the owners have voluntarily agreed


 * This is what it says after Argyriou's changes:
 * HOA boards of directors are not generally bound by constitutional restrictions on governments because the law views them as business entities, and accepts that all the owners have voluntarily agreed


 * Suddenly, the acceptance is changed from "legal fiction," to a simple fact. That contradicts the award-winning book! The author would have a fit! (Plus, it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.) Also, after the edit, it is no longer "courts" doing the accepting — but "the law," an unsourced, new statement (yet the original source remains cited).


 * There is no specific warning of any of this in Argyriou's edit summary, which vaguely states that the edit is to "reorganize and start to de-POV."


 * These changes don't "reorganize", and — rather than "de-POV" — they radically convert sourced content into POV. What the professor was writing, that HOA boards are (private) governments, is summarily deleted.


 * No source is provided for Argyriou's edit — but what's worse, is that a peer-reviewed textbook still remains as the source of content that's been altered so radically, that it is far from what was published in the source cited!


 * Here's another example:


 * This sourced material was in the article before Argyriou's changes:
 *  This disenfranchisement may violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In essence, homeowner associations establish a new community as a municipal corporation without ensuring that those citizens who will be governed have a voice in the decision-making process.


 * This is what remained after Argyriou's changes:
 *  Critics argue that homeowner associations establish a new community as a municipal corporation without ensuring that the residents governed will have a voice in the decision-making process.


 * Argyriou's edit changes material that is stated as a fact, in the source cited, into something "critics argue."


 * Who are these "critics"? The source cited was the Urban Land Institute, a developer organization. The developers are the ones creating the homeowner associations. The ULI isn't an organization of HOA "critics". That would hurt sales, and developers seek to maximize profit!


 * The bottom line is that no source is provided to equate the ULI and "critics".


 * Does anything negative about HOAs have to be prefaced with the words "critics argue"? Lots of people criticize politicians. Indeed, they criticize one another. Many of the things that have been published about politicians are negative, but that doesn't mean that everything negative published about them has been "argued" by "critics". Some of it is just straight fact.


 * Finally, Argyriou's edit removed this sourced statement: "This disenfranchisement may violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." There was no discussion of the reverting.


 * "Reorganize and start to de-POV" doesn't describe this summary deletion.

According to WP:TROLL, "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia." So Argyriou has to assume bad faith on my part to call me a troll. This is not the first time Argyriou has violated Assume good faith. When Argyriou summarily deleted the dispute tag, he wrote in the edit summary, "remove redundant attempts to discredit source". Since Argyriou cannot know that the intention of the editor(s), whose content Argyriou's edit removed, was "to discredit [the] source," Argyriou assumed bad faith.
 * I'm afraid that I'll get sucked up into this fast-paced and incorrigible drama and make mistake(s) and be accused of impropriety myself.
 * When I wrote that a destructive edit of Argyriou's was vandalism, he added this insulting post to my user talk page, claimed my tone was incivil, deleted my entire post from his talk page, and barred me from posting on 'his' talk page. I find his barring quite convenient for him, considering my analysis of his editing raised serious questions.
 * Argyriou keeps calling me a "troll".  Advocacy should request that Argyriou stop the recurring personal attacks, or suggest that I make the request(s).

Summary:

 * Well, first of all, I want Attribution followed on the article.
 * When I filed this Request, I was not the only editor editing the homeowners association article, but I was the only one referencing my contributions with sources.
 * Secondly, "Other Wikipedians this pertains to" have added a lot of unsourced content, apparently off the tops of their heads.
 * Argyriou has edited the homeowners association article at least 21 times, adding and changing a lot of content, yet not one of these edits have cited any source.
 * Third, I was in the middle of an edit (cuz I had to go to sleep), and the editor that had added the most unsourced material immediately challenged it -- no, removed it -- based on the fact that I hadn't put the citation in yet. I felt that opened the door for me, because I had been watching this self-same editor adding a ton of unsourced content. So I tagged the article. She immediately removed the tag, since the article belongs to her, claiming that I had not specifically identified where the unsourced material was. (It was anywhere where there was no citation! That is not hard to find. I don't want to litter the entire article with tags. Do I have to?)


 * I want the process/procedure for an NPOV tag to be followed ('specificity'), and for the person that put the neutrality disputed tag on the article to accept the correct interpretation of it, complete with its limitations.

Discussion:
I never mentioned WP:CITE. I mentioned WP:A. According to WP:A, "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies." It doesn't say, "it's not necessary to cite sources for everything." That is just an opinion, like this one: Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.
 * This sounds like an edit war, although it's nothing significant enough to cause anyone to be punished. There does appear to be a couple of discussions about this occurring on the article's talk page, but it seems that an agreement can't be reached here. I'll keep looking into this and see what else I can dig up. — P ilotguy go around  20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon looking into this further, there seems to be significant violations of WP:OWN. While that in and of itself is not significant, I'd advise the editors in question to relax a notch or two, and realize this is a wiki. If you don't want your work taken out into the street and shot at, then don't edit. — P ilotguy go around  20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jance has been indefinitely blocked, so I have crossed her name out. — P ilotguy go around  00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The policies being mentioned, such as NP:AGF and WP:CITE, aren't as serious to follow such as, say, WP:NLT, and so it sounds like there has been policing going on in that regard. While it is important to assume good faith, one will generally not be blocked on the first instance of not doing so. With regards to CITE, keep in mind we have over a million articles, and if I remember correctly, about a third of them are unreferenced, so it's not necessary to cite sources for everything, unless, of course, you're looking at WP:FA. —Pilot guy (go around)  21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it follows that since -- in your opinion -- policies such as NP:AGF and WP:CITE aren't relatively serious, "it sounds like there has been policing going on in that regard." If you read the play-by-play I added above, then you see that it was me that was trying to do that policing, and that my attempts were being frustrated.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
 * -- Rico 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Attribution states, "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." -- Rico 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia:Tutorial states, "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute."
 * You can't even edit a page without seeing, "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." — Rico 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines states, in its Key Policies section, "the following policies are particularly important to the project, and the sooner you understand and use them, the better: ... Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles. (See Attribution)." — Rico 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all good and well, but now comes the question of whether or not this content reflected a neutral point of view or not. Both of you seem to be at a disagreement at that. Material needs to be sourced, yes (what I was saying earlier is while it should be sourced, it is not going to be in every article, and this one may not be an exception to that), but I think you ought to look more at whether or not the contributions you all made to this article reflected WP:NPOV. Read up on that and tell me what you think. —Pilot guy (go around)  21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Argyriou
The article Homeowners association, as I found it on 8 February, was a mess. The entire tone of the article was that of a left-wing hit-piece on homeowner's associations, citing every minor or misplaced criticism ever made, while couching the few statements regarding the benefits of homeowners' associations in multiple qualifiers, and with attempts to impugn the credibility of the sources. Shortly before my arrival, RicoCorinth had made a series of edits which increased the leftward and anti-association slant of the article. While most of Rico's statements were atrributed, they are primarily attributed to one or two hatchet-jobs attacking homeowners' associations for a variety of imagined sins.

Specific examples of undue weight and POV language in Rico's earlier edits:


 * "===Illiberal and profoundly undemocratic==="
 * "In a variety of ways, CID private governments are illiberal and undemocratic. "
 * "Merriam-Webster Online defines democracy as government by the people; especially: rule of the majority — a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them."
 * "The structure of corporate governance fashioned by corporation laws is essentially a "top down," oligarchical structure."
 * "Only property owners are eligible to vote in elections, so renters are disenfranchised, but still subject to the board's authority."
 * "This ownership qualification for voting raises constitutional questions, especially considering the large number of rented units in many developments."
 * "Serious legal issues arise in terms of equal enfranchisement of all citizens, since HOAs exclude renters from membership. " (uncited)
 * "These private governments may violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (uncited)

After I stuck a pov tag on the article, and explained my issues in the talk page, Rico made an edit which he claimed was "removing weasel words" where he introduced the the highly POV text: and another POV edit in which he calls my changes vandalism:
 * "a rationale that remains the most common justification for the loss of freedom inherent in a development run under a regime of restrictive covenants."
 * "There are crucial legal questions regarding the extent and substance of legitimate citizen participation."

Many of Rico's additions to the article are sourced, but they still violate WP:NPOV by placing WP:undue weight on criticisms of homeowners' associations from a particular left-wing perspective - the (IMO foolish) notion that all corporate endeavors ought to be run in a democratic fashion and that people are easily fooled into agreeing to restrictions on their actions which are against their best interests. My edits have attempted to correct the leftist POV in the article, removing crap like
 * "The origins of how this came to be here in America, the bastion of democracy"
 * "This quiet acceptance of homeowners associations was accomplished by the mass merchandising of the planned community model by entities with a strong business profit-making motive, who published and distributed TB#50 as the tool to overcome any objections by the public, the real estate agents, the mortgage companies, the state legislatures and the local planning boards."
 * "Over the 42 years since the publication of The Homes Association Handbook, it has become the “bible” for the mass merchandising of planned communities with the accompanying affect on American society, its values and the loss of individual property rights, and the loss of fundamental rights and freedoms upon which this country was founded. "

and fixing criticisms presented as bald assertions of fact such as:
 * "Associations wield the power of a government without having to submit to the checks and balances and other responsibilities of one."

Rico's behavior during this dispute failed to meet minimal standards of courtesy. First he posts to my talk page complaining that I have not told him what specific details I think need to be changed, when I'd clearly stated that the problem was a holistic issue with the article, not a few specific issues. Rico's inability to recognize his left-wing POV as left-wing POV makes it impossible to constructively work with him on this article, or any other. User:Jance, who generally shares Rico's leftist POV, was capable of understanding that she had a POV, and I was able to work constructively with her on some changes to the article. Rico just attacked me and accused me of vandalism. I will not work with him on articles unless he changes his tone significantly. Αργυριου (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: under investigation

Advocate Status: *Accepted by — P ilotguy go around  23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A request has now been put in for a different advocate, so I am formally withdrawing from this case and changing the status to avoid complications. —Pilot guy (go around)  23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)