Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hogeye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should Hogeye's comments be in Section 1? I was thinking of moving them but wasn't sure of the procedure. --Tothebarricades 00:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure also. How about putting them on a subheading within the "Response" section, since that's where he is supposed to write at? (He made sure to sign all them to avoid confusion, but I agree they would be better moved to a separate subsection.) --cesarb 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should cesarb be taking sides?

Should cesarb be taking sides in a POV content dispute on a page where he is the admin who imposed page protection? Cesarb, you may not be familiar with the history of this page. This petty RfC is not the way to handle what is essentially just a content dispute, where a cabal is unwilling to allow representation of a legit component of anarchism on the page.--Silverback 05:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I requested the page protection, I posted the RFC; do you think those actions were inappropriate and if so, why? --albamuth 08:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the protection was asked for on WP:RFPP before the page was protected (in fact, both sides asked for it) and this RFC is about Hogeye's behaviour, not about the content dispute, I see no problem with it. In fact, I still have no idea as to which side is right; I just wish Hogeye tried to work more with the others instead of resorting to calling names or forking the articles. --cesarb 10:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have tried forking articles in the past, so that is nothing new. The obvious compromise is to turn anarchism into a mere disambiguation page, with each side equally represented on it, but the cabal is unwilling to relinquish any control, and is intellectually dishonest in trying to claim that all anti-government and individualists anarchists of the past are also anti-capitalist. Just look at the gift economy page and you will see the intellectual poverty of their position. Once they coercively suppress free exchange, they have nothing to replace it with, excepts gifts from people who own nothing to people who aren't allowed to own anything, all goods are public and there is no means to produce them.

As the admin who is administering the protection of the page, it is a conflict of interest for you to also be bringing a dispute by being one of the prime certifiers, especially since a minor dispute, where the uncivil-language list is quite short and not (unfortunately) out of line with the attitudes of others on both sides, and where the forking of articles is a legitimate attempt to resolve this content issues in probably the only way that will work, but giving the unwillingness to compromise by the cabal, such forks will probably have to be imposed.

You should seriously question your own involvement in this, this RfC is a joke, it is a fraction of what RfAs usually amount to, and will only serve to give the cabal more of a feeling of entitlement, something they obviously have enough of. You should either withdraw your endorsement of the RfC or turn administration of page protection over to another admin. You have become a party to this content dispute.--Silverback 22:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Turn administration of page protection over to another admin"? That does not exist. Page protections are not "owned" or administered by anyone. Any administrator can unprotect the page, and in fact, it's quite often a different administrator who does the unprotection. In fact, since I listed the page at Wikipedia:Protected page, someone else probably will unprotect sooner or later, without any prompting. So, I see no conflict of interest at all. --cesarb 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are underplaying the nominal culture of deference to other admins that are handling an issue. But as long as you are making it clear that you don't feel particular ownership and we can point to this, then I am less concerned about this conflict of interest.--Silverback 23:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting?

This has been re-listed. Does it need additional certification? What is the status of this RfC? Jkelly 20:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the relisting and created a new one. --cesarb 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case it is not clear to me that User:Albamuth can certify it, as User:Albamuth was citing attempts at resolution before the block of User:Hogeye, and have not attempted any further resolution since User:Hogeye's return. It does seem to me that this is the same dispute, interrupted by User:Hogeye's being blocked. Jkelly 23:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)