Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:39, 1 August 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC).

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Hipocrite and I are unable to resolve a disagreement regarding Hipocrite's treatment of a third editor, History21.

• Hipocrite argues that because History21 has allegedly been involved in hoax activity in the past, Hipocrite is justified in "blind reverting" all of History21's new contributions unless each statement is specifically sourced. In addition, Hipocrite has repeatedly accused History21 of hoax activity on a variety of talk pages and edit history.
• I argue that unless sanctioned by ArbCom, History21 is entitled to be treated with the same assumption of good faith as any other editor.

Description

{Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

I don't mean this RFC as a criticism of Hipocrite -- we're just unable to resolve this disagreement, and I think some outside commentary would be helpful.

As background, Hipocrite has previously accused History21 of taking part in a series of hoaxes, primarily about the "Eire family." (See here).

As far as I can tell, no one has ever posted diffs explaining what History21 did that constitutes a hoax, and History21 denies being part of any hoax.

From the looks of the articles he created on this subject, History21 probably needs a little help with wiki policies on sourcing, but I can't see that he's engaged in any hoax. See, e.g., , .

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Hipocrite reverts History21, citing his own hoax report as justification in the edit history.
2. Same.
3. Hipocrite admits that he has "blindly" reverted all of History21's changes, based on History21's alleged history of "mailicously and repeatedly" hoaxing wikipedia. ,
4. Hipocrite accuses History21 of a "substantial history of adding hoax information to the encyclopedia," without diffs or links.
5. Hipocrite accuses History21 of "obvious" and "clear" hoaxes in deleted pages, and adds an accusation of sockpuppetry, all without providing links or diffs for any accusation.

Applicable policies and guidelines

I'm not 100% sure which policies apply - it could be that I'm in the wrong here, but I would appeciate an outside opinion. Strong possibilities include:

1. WP:AGF - Hipocrite and Zoe have accused History21 of hoaxing. IMHO, notwithstanding that allegation, AGF requires Hipocrite (1) to treat History21's new edits just like anyone else's, and (2) not to throw around accusations like his statement that History21 "malicously and repeatedly" hoaxed wikipedia. I'm particularly troubled here, where Hipocrite can't even show me where the hoaxing occurred.
2. Misplaced Pages:vandalism - In a related issue, Rangley and Hipocrite diagree whether Hipocrite's self-described "blind reversions" constitute vandalism, if made in good faith. I
3. Misplaced Pages:harassment - I don't really think that the "blind reversions" are vandalism, since Hipocrite explains them, but I do think they're harassment.
4. WP:Bite - IMHO, Hipocrite is beating up a new editor, on awfully thin evidence of hoax activity.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

History21

• History21 asked Hipocrite to stop blind reverting his changes.,

• Hipocrite refused, arguing that Zoe's "final warning" means that he "does not have to" , and that History21's alleged "history" of hoaxing means that he is on special scrutiny..

TruthCrusader

• TruthCrusader asked why Hipocrite was removing photos, and how photos could be considered hoax activity, and Hypocrite replied that he was "blindly reverting" all of History21's additions based on History21's alleged prior hoaxing.

Rangeley

• Rangeley argued that "blind reversions" constitute vandalism, but Hipocrite disagreed, arguing that his blind reversions were made in good faith, and therefore not vandalism.

TheronJ

• I raised these issues with Hipocrite..

• In response, Hipocrite said that he couldn't show me the evidence of History21's actions, because they occurred in deleted articles, but that History21's hoaxes were "obvious" and "clear." In that response, Hipocrite also accused History21 of sockpuppetry, but didn't provide a link.

• After further discussion, we eventually agreed to refer the issue to an RFC. I offered to collaborate with Hipocrite on the RFC, but he refused.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. TheronJ 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. History21 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21

Other users who endorse this summary

1. rootology 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

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.

{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:

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.

{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:

Outside view by rootology

As an outside obersver who saw this unfold after following the initial WP:ANI reports here and here, the bigger issue I think is thank blanking out many, many revisions worth of content as Hipocrite did on this edit was not a wise choice. If you look at what he excised on the (at the time of the edit) still alleged hoaxing that the History21 user was just being accused of, he functionally nuked a significant portion of the content. Content, which looking back over, includes lots of images and factual information.

On this edit, Hipocrite defends his edits saying, "I will not remove anything with information from reliable sources," and "This is not a retributive or punishing action, it is protecting the encyclopedia from someone who has used sockpuppets to hoax." I agree, defending the project is at all times key. However, on that July 26th reversion, the excised common knowledge information that doesn't need to be factually cited.

1. A picture of the Clinton family, labeling each of them.
2. "From January 20, 1953, to January 20, 1961, the White House was occupied by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Lady Mamie Doud Eisenhower, and, to an extent, the couple's two grandchildren."
3. "President Ford was defeated for reelection in 1976, making the Fords' Washington tenure one of the shortest in American history."
4. "A Congressman from Michigan, Ford had been serving in the House of Representatives since 1949 when Vice President Spirow T. Agnew suddenly resigned on October 10, 1973. Ford was nominated for the vice presidency on October 12th and finally confirmed on December 6, 1973."

There are more still. I strongly disagree with any assertation that any mass revision of approximately 30-32 previous edits is ever a good or intelligient thing to do. Many legit edits were nuked in the process. At best, some of the more florid language should have been copyedited out, but the knee-jerk reaction was a bit much. As seen here, the filer of the RfC was concerned that Hipocrite was acting almost in an administrative capacity, and mentions this here:

• "However, I am still concerned that you're blind reverting an editor who has not been sanctioned by ArbCom. Do you mind if I initiate an RFC?" - TheronJ
• "Please do." - Hipocrite

I don't believe the mass reversion was done in bad faith, but perhaps as simply overdoing what should have been done. I don't believe that anyone should be trying to wholesale undo anyone else's edits, and no editor (or admin) should make any such edits without properly investigating them or without it being sanctioned. This edit appears to be what Hipocrite reverted to. However, as mentioned by TheronJ in the cited comment, I don't think that was an appropriate or wise decision, and this RfC could perhaps be a platform to set a policy vs. such inappropriate mass revisions. An important note: as I write this, on 7/31/06, there is no proof that History21 edited this article in bad faith, maliciously, or with any ill intent. Looking through the edits, I don't see anything negative, just expansion. I see points where I would have personally cited things, but a lot of the information given the public stage of the Presidential families is common knowledge and not even cited in their "main" article. And, of course, every single sentence in an article shouldn't have a cite or a footnote--I can safely say that Ford lived in the White House from years x to y without having to cite that, or that the sky is blue.

Summary: Revisions by Hipocirte not done in apparent bad faith or obvious ill intent, but they were ill-advised, and should not be repeated on this magnitude by anyone except at the direction of the Arbitration Committee (goes for Admins as well as regular Editors). Even if history bears out that History21 is a vandal or WP:SOCK violation--which it hasn't yet, if at all--the impetus MUST be to properly repair and addres the article content point by point, line by line, or else legitimate fact and hard work by other Wikipedians can be obliterated. If it's a simple RV vs. obvious vandalism, of course, take action: but reverting 30+ edits and five days of work on what was at the time a possible hunch, and apparently 'blindly' in this case, was a bad move.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. rootology 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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.