Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye

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, not different disputes. 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: 19:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

(Hogeye | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

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

Since arriving on Wikipedia, Hogeye (a self-described anarcho-capitalist (link taken from User:Hogeye)) has been trying to push his POV on the Anarchism article, resulting in a revert war which ended up with both Anarchism and Anarchism (disambiguation) being protected.

Unable to edit the article to how he wanted it to be, he created two versions of the article, which were both deleted. To try to save his version from being deleted, he created a backup copy of the article, which was speedy deleted. After all were deleted, he recreated the two versions with different titles, which were both speedy deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (philosophy) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (movement)). Both were recreated again with the same titles and speedy deleted again.

He has also used personal attacks on his opponents. Many users have attempted compromise, but Hogeye insists upon his controversial position that the entire article should be written with his POV in mind - his intransigence has left the Anarchism article locked for some time.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Personal attacks:

[1] "The socialist assholes repeatedly have either erased anarcho-capitalism and individual anarchism entirely, or relegated them to the Conflicts section instead of the Schools section."
[2] "Note: The above note was written by one the people causing the edit war in question - the same asshole that initiated this deletion process."
[3] Can we have a page for anarchism (theory)? --albamuth 14:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) - "We used to, but some buttfucker redirected it."

This seems rather mild, considering the volume of writing. Hogeye 00:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV forks and recreation of a deleted article:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (philosophy)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (movement)
Anarcho-socialism vs. Anarcho-capitalism
Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism
Recreation of the deleted Anarchism (anti-state) in several locations, including Anarchism/anti-state and Anarchism/antistate

POV forks are only against Wiki policy if it "is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines." This was an attempt to avoid a permanent edit war and solve a definitional dispute, as is clear from Anarchism Talk and the Votes for Deletion page. Hogeye 00:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring:

Page history for Anarchism - latest edits include over a dozen reverts, mostly vandalism
Page history for Anarchism (disambiguation)
Fascism - repeated attempts to state that the New Deal was a form of fascism
Page history for Template:Anarchism sidebar - blatant POV edits, rewriting the template to conform to his belief system, vandalism

Hogeye has also created numerous sock puppets and has edited anonymously to avoid the three-revert rule and his block by User:Hadal.

I revert sometimes; they revert sometimes; welcome to Wiki. Hogeye 00:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on admin after being blocked:

Hadal blocks him[4] for 3RR violations[5]
Hogeye edits using a proxy[6]
Hadal rollbacks[7] and blocks the proxy
Hogeye edits using another proxy[8] with an edit summary of "Fuck Hadal and the horse he rode in on."

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Wikipedia:Deletion policy
Wikipedia:POV fork
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No original research

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Tothebarricades 19:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
cesarb 19:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most or all of the behaviour that made me certify this RFC has either reduced greatly or disappeared. Withdrawing. --cesarb 3 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)
And as soon as Anarchism was unprotected, he started doing it all again, including a pretty nasty personal attack on an administrator after being blocked by him for gaming the 3RR, made using an anonymous proxy [9]. Certifying again. --cesarb 15:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, can you add that information with links to the above section? I'd like a comprehensive overview of his misbehavior in case it's needed in the future. --Tothebarricades 23:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Fatal 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

— Chameleon 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
— max rspct 22:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
— Bk0 00:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose, but it's just another POV pusher doing what they do. Don't let's waste too much time on it. Grace Note 02:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
— millerc 03:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
— Liftarn 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
— albamuth 19:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
— --AaronS 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is simply some partisan anarcho-socialists trying to get rid of their competition. They are too biased and unreasonable to change their blatently POV anarchism article, so they've quit trying to discuss it and are now trying to play the system. Anyone who reads Anarchism Talk or the discussion with ToTheBarricades will see that I've willingly discussed the issues at length, and tried to reason with those in the prevailing clique. (Yes, occasionally I use colorful language. Get a grip, chumps!) Hogeye 23:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Hogeye has stirred things up that needed to be stirred up. The anarchism article has so far been controlled by people that are apparently either POV warriors or have little knowledge of anarchist philosophy (Individualist anarchism wasn't even included as a school of anarchism....duh!). The article is poorly concieved, poorly written, poorly organized, and informationally and intellectually deficient. People are just upset that the status quo is being disturbed. It needed to be. Hogeye is a doing a great service for Wikipedia. RJII 03:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even though his style has been personal and emotional, I find no reason for punitive action. He has not simply replaced articles, he has only been trying to emphasize an alternatice POV and this kind of controversy is needed to keep wikipedia "alive". albamuth 07:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) I take that back. --albamuth 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His style can certainly get annoying, and the profusion of forked pages gets silly, but something needs to be done to attempt to achieve a more balanced set of anarchism articles than the socialist crowd will allow. *Dan* 11:41, Jun 21, 2005 (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.

{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.}

This looks a poorly constructed case and selective and hypocritical persecution.

For instance, personal attack example 1 above, is hardly "personal", since noone is personally named or referred to, I have seen worse abuse heaped upon Nazis and fascists. Perhaps, using fowl language is a bit uncivil.

The selectiveness and hypocrisy is shown by chameleon endorsing the above. Here are the uncivilility and personal attacks he has engaged in just over within a short period of time.[10][11]

Note, the uncivil language by Fatal here:[12]

I'm anti-civilization, what can I say.. --Fatal 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And here is max rspct being uncivil [13]

ahem! profane? abusive? The only uncivil editor involved are the ones who DO NOT RESPECT WIKIPEDIA OR AGREE WITH IT'S DEMOCRATIC NATURE AND TAKE AN UNHEALTHY INTEREST IN CREATING EXTREME-RIGHTWING PROPOGANDA WITHIN SUCH AS THE PERSON I WAS ADDRESSING max rspct 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) addendum- hogeye admits colourful (colorful/abusive) language yet his defenders accuse us of uncivility - smells like the reichstag to me. user:max rspct

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

endorse--Silverback 02:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.