Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite

Rootology, I mostly agree. I'm not sure that I agree that even if History21 were proven to be a hoaxer or a sock, then Hipocrite would still be in the wrong.

On reflection, my biggest concern is that it hasn't been proven that History21 is a dirty sockpuppeting hoaxer. In fact, a lot of the stuff he was accused of hoaxing (Eire castle, whatever science fiction book was at issue) turned out to be actual things. My guess is that if someone (1) worked with History21 on sourcing his stuff better and (2) stopped reverting him, he would mature into a good editor. Maybe my major concern is WP:BITE, although the other policies apply too. TheronJ 01:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are unable to see his deleted edits. I saw them before my reversions. When users who can see deleted edits arrive and show you that you DO assume good faith from the long established contributor and you DON'T assume good faith from the hoaxer whining about how he's being treated oh-so-unfairly (of course, all he had to do was insert reliable sources), I expect a full apology and retraction. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily apologize for something if proven wrong, but I didn't slam YOU. I simply stated in my summary that I didn't think mass-RVing was a good idea (I think it always is except in obvious vandalism). In all seriousness, and I'm not baiting you or trying to--did you check out some of the edits? They weren't really bad on this article. I'm not saying he didn't hoax other stuff--I don't know, as it's deleted. My response in the RfC was just about this one specific article, and how I felt in general such an extensive RV was a bad thing--nothing specific to you. However, if everyone feels otherwise, I'll happily strikethrough that as well. rootology 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Theron, my biggest concern simply is that with 20/20 hindsight, looking over the edits, the only thing I could immediately see wrong with the contributions was that he Anne Rice'd it a bit with his use of language. It read like a potboiler rather than an encyclopedia entry at times. My simply contention is that it would have been better to just check for the hoax stuff rather than undo all the actual work (5 days' worth) on the article. rootology 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the less I'm convinced History21 had anything to do with a hoax. As Hipocrite says, maybe some of the people involved have something to say, but from what I can tell:

1. History21 was probably involved somehow in an article on the Eyre family, "The Eyre Empire", which was deleted after a successful AFD;
2. From the discussion in that AFD, it's possible that the article was inappropriate geneology or Original Research, but I don't see much consensus that it was a hoax. I see some people saying it was, and other people saying it's OR or geneology cruft.
3. It's pretty apparent that there are various Eyres throughout history, as shown by History21's outrageously detailed citation list.
4. I'm also a little concerned that Hipocrite routinely cites to his own accusation of hoaxery as proof of History21's hoax activity. As far as I can tell, none of the pages that Hipocrite cites on the ANI (Judy Feder, Eyre legend, Eyrecourt Castle, Westminster High School (Westminster, Maryland), And Having Writ) involve hoax activity by History21.

So maybe the Eyre Empire article was improperly sourced, or geneology cruft, or original research. Or maybe it was an actual hoax built on historical facts. If this had been referred to the ArbCom, or if there was a clear consensus that History21 had committed a hoax, I'd be a lot more comfortable with punishing. As it is, I'm concerned that someone who could be developed into a good editor, with a better understanding of what Wiki is and isn't, is getting tarred as a hoaxer.TheronJ 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why WP:BITE is so important. It looks like he's anothher well-meaning, obviously not familiar with Wikipedia standards editor that's been branded an evil troll by an editor who takes disagreements way too personally. If you go into disputes with guns blazing and insults at the ready, you're bound to alienate newbies. Karwynn (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you might be right, and History21 might have been guilty of some egregious hoax activity. However, two of the things that give me concern are:

1. You routinely cite to your own ANI complaint as evidence that History21 is a clear and egregious hoaxer.
   1. Was there ever any administrative action taken as a result of that notice? If so, what?
   2. The pages that you cite as possible hoaxes -- Judy Feder, Eyre legend, Eyrecourt Castle, Westminster High School (Westminster, Maryland), And Having Writ, are all in existence today. Can you give us some diffs of what History21 wrote on those pages that you think might be a hoax, and explain why?
2. It looks to me as if the Eyre fans need some work in what wikipedia is -- a lot of their sources aren't reliable, and a lot of the stuff is pretty offensive OR, but there doesn't seem to be much dispute that there is an Eyre family. Is this a case of cruddy sourcing and page writing looking like a hoax? How could anyone know without an arbcom case?

Thanks, and sorry for being such a pain, TheronJ 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not my report, Zoes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who says to to review History21, though. (Sorry, I can't figure out how to do a diff to the archive). Zoe doesn't say that History21 says that Grange Estate was unverifiable, and contains "Heller/Eyre nonsense" but (1) History21 didn't add the Heller/Eyre nonsense (unless he's a sock) and (2) the stuff he did add turns out to be verifiable. Thanks, TheronJ 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He required review because of his substantial editing overlap with the other two - I was not aware at the time that Zoe had already warned him. Please ask the users who can review deleted history to go over his older contibutions, or just wait for the result from the filed checkuser. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Should these be moved to discussion? Bishonen did so at MONGO's deleted RfC, but I know if I do it, TOny Sidaway will swoop in and block me again. Discussion is supposedc to go here, not at the project page. Karwynn (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should, but I'm inclined to remove his comments anyway for obvious reasons, namely that the editor does nothing but attack two users.--MONGO 14:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not really proper. If his comments are bogus or meritless (I personally don't take them seriously at all), they will speak for themselves. There's no reason to delete other's comments, that's vandalism. Karwynn (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ah, no it's not vandalism if I am removing inflammatory additions by an obvious troll.--MONGO 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Karyn, I think there's a community practice of permitting users to post notes about suspected sock activity in the various "quasi-voting/debate" pages like RFC and AfD, although (1) I can't find it, and (2) I wouldn't recommend that you start trying it if you're already on the wrong foot with some of the admins. Since Mongo's comment is self-explanatory and probably right, I think it's probably fine. TheronJ 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor, informal poll, plz sign names below and comment further below - it seems to me that people are using "go write an encyclopedia" as a cheap excuse to ignore perceived transgressions of veteran editors. I think that these perceived transgressions, if valid, are major hindrances to writing an encyclopedia, and thus merit full and uninhibitted discussion. If the complaints are nonsense, the RfCs will show them to be as such, and to say that the whole thing should be disregarded is counterproductive.

Agree

1. Karwynn (talk)
2. rootology 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

1. This has nothing to do with this Rfc and yes, you are nothing but a disruptive troll that is about to be permabanned.--MONGO 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. "Go write an encyclopedia" is IMHO rude and dismissive as used, but (1) not outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL and (2) doesn't prevent discussion of the underlying issue, so I'd assume good faith and say no harm done. Besides, the concern that people spend too much time on process and not enough on work is not rare, and usually not wrong. ;-P TheronJ 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

For example, I'm paralyzed from editing controversial articles until this "troll scare" McCarthysm of several editors is overwith. I challenge the judgement of veteran editors, and I'm branded as a destructive troll who is bound to get wikistalked. I protest the label, and get called a troll for doing so, and so on and so on. It's these absurd trolling accusations that are hindering my writing of an encyclopedia, not my choice to "make a fuss" out of abusive behavior. Karwynn (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It does have to do with this, because these "go write an encyclopedia" comments are disrupting it. Karwynn (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe about the troll part, but I take it further. History21 and Hipocrite both are trolls. Hipocrite has a long history of trolling and some of the people here like rootology were previous troll victims of Hipocrite. I cite this example [1]. Both of them are trolls. I consider Hipocrite's name to be a violation of wikipedia's name policy, for trolling as well. Both are trolls.

1. SoftPaleColors 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   • User is an obvious sockpuppet of someone. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) first edit in six months. I've seen this pattern quite a bit lately.--MONGO 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • This particular outside view doesn't really back it up with diffs or reasoning. Karwynn (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hipocrite, who is SoftPaleColors a sockpuppet of? Karwynn (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor now indefinitely blocked for obvious reasons. No edits in six month, less than 15 total and suddenly "shows up" here to troll and insult two editors.--MONGO 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was hipocrite not also likewise blocked for trolling and insulting ME on your own 2nd RfC? Hipocrite also likes to immediately throw the puppet insult about; I think this block is unjustified. rootology 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I have a long and productive history of good-faith contributions to this encyclopedia - something you could aspire to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor shows up after a six month hiatus and proceeds to insult two editors for no reason. It's a sleeper account set up when semi-protection was being implemented.--MONGO 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, thanks for your input. I've been a fan for a while, and I take your comments very seriously.

I agree that the vandalism speaks for itself, and that History21 needs some work on citation style and copyvio. However, unless he's engaged in sockpuppetry, I can't see how he's a hoaxer.

You write:

I see that History21 has been counciled about these matters recently, [2].

I saw those notes during my initial look at this, and looked over the whole history of the Grange Estate article in response, since Zoe didn't include diffs in her warning. Unless you assume that History21 was sockpuppeting the anonymous editor on that page: (1) he didn't add any of the material that Zoe found objectionable and (2) the material that he did add was not a hoax. (It was a copyvio, but that seems like a newbie problem to me, and strikes me as pretty close to the polar opposite of a hoax).

Are you comfortable with Hipocrite's repeated statements that History21 is an obvious, clear hoaxer? It seems to me that unless History21 is a sock (which would be a more serious accusation anyway and sufficient to bar any non-main accounts altogether), that's pretty far from clear.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since some of the articles History21 created are now deleted due to being at worst, hoaxes and at best not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia due to them being unverifiable, I can't do anything other than link to the deletion votes on said articles. It's also possible that much of this is due to History21 not understanding the reasons we demand verifiablity and or no original research, but one would have hoped that after these issues had been brought to his attention, he would now be following the policies. I don't see evidence my self of sockpuppetry, maybe perhaps some edits using simply an IP. I also do not reason at this time to block History21 from editing. I have a lot of faith in Zoe and Hipocrite at identifying bad faith edits, so that forms part of my perceptions on the matter as well. Not all of History21's edits are "bad", by any means, so maybe more counciling on this matter is necessary.--MONGO 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since whether History21 is a hoaxer is part of this RFC, it is of some concern to me that (1) some of the evidence against History21 is Zoe's warning that to stop hoaxing Grange Estate, and (2) unless he's a sock, History21 obvious hasn't hoaxed Grange Estate. TheronJ 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can direct you to read comments on the following Afd's. This Afd was about an article that was created by History21:[3] and the commentators there mostly declared that they found the article to be either a hoax or simply unverifiable. On this Afd, a "blanket Afd", the deletion of 5 more hoaxes or unverifiable articles was debated, resulting in them being declared either to be hoaxes or, again, unverifiable: [4]...the articles included George Eyre, Jehu Eyre, Leroy Heller, Franklin Pierce Heller and Anne Eyre Heller. In both Afd's, History21 provided many links, but they were not deemed notable enough to save the articles from deletion. All five articles were started by History21.--MONGO 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea that History21's "providing many links" serves as evidence of a hoax seems odd to me. Looking at the links, it looks to me as if he had (1) a good faith belief that the material was true and (2) a poor understanding of WP:RS and WP:OR. If Hipocrite (and Zoe, but she's not at issue here) weren't repeatedly accusing History21 of being a clear and obvious hoaxer and deserving special scrutiny because of that, I probably wouldn't object to the individual revisions (except the photos, which were sourced). TheronJ 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor note - the photos were unsourced and are rapidly being deleted - and not through my actions - [5]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Hipocrite. I'd call them "poorly sourced," but you're right. TheronJ 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ, I'm not sure that History21 has deliberately engaged in bad faith here, and he may simply not understand what reliable sources are. I assume that Hipocrite is the more aware of this editor's activities than I am, and tends to view, based on the links provided, that the vast bulk of his contributions are circumspect. I'm not sure I can add much more to that.--MONGO 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to add info of his hoaxes, but an edit conflict below caused me to lose everything I had added, I will have to do it again later, but this should be good enough for now, History21 restored the hoax information to Grange Estate, claiming that the site he refrences supported his reversion, even though it does nothing of the sort. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can call that diff "hoax information" since it was reverted as a substantial copyvio of the estate's web site (unless you think the historical society is perpetuating the hoax). Thatcher131 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know where the official website discusses the rambunctious children and most specifically, Category:Eyre family. I'd very very much like to know how someone could insert that category and not be complicit in the hoax. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The mnaterial that wasn't a hoax was a copyvio, but the Eyre/Heller information was made up out of whole cloth. Specifically, Manuel, whose family had loaned substantial sums to the Continental Congress, valued the house for historic and patriotic reasons. which perpetuates the hoax about the Eyre family having finance the Continental Congress and the Revolutionary War, all without references, and no references have ever been forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, could you provide some evidence of my trollery please and explain how my edits in question have fit the description in WP:TROLL please? Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Karywn, if I can make a suggestion, let's just let people comment. I'm absolutely not questioning your (or Hipocrite's) good faith or contributions, but the battle over whether you, Hipocrite, or nobody is a troll is bound to be a distraction. TheronJ 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[6] Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right... a block based on reverting removal NOT done by MONGO (and then stopping once he was doing the reverting), a block that was overturned because his demands had already been fulfilled, and a block asking for an explanation of MONGO's proposed deletion of an IP's contrib history. Anything else? Karwynn (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked for trolling. That block was posted at WP:AN. It was not contested, nor were you unblocked except that you promised to stop your bad acts. Your bad acts continued, and you were reblocked. This is my final statement on the matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That does it, good luck on all of this to everyone, across the board. Every single person on all of these pages is gone from my watchlist in every fashion (my first deletions ever). If any users are disallowed from having their actions looked at and are above reproach/get free passes on this system, I want nothing to do with any of them as working with them would be not conducive to a sane person's mental health. Good day. rootology 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As the filer, let me say that this is just a request for comment. Mongo's comment, yours, Karyn's -- they're all just a read on what the community thinks. I suspect that we'll be able to work this out, one way or the other. TheronJ 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since rootology has better judgement thatn anyone else involved in any of this, I'm going to take a leaf out of his book, even if it is against my own judgement. As long as dispute resolution is not possible, I'm not going to dig myself deeper based on ideals. Discussion attempts with a user who blocks someone for maintaining the integrity of a dispute resolution process is not productive. Good luck getting your dispute resolved, TheronJ, but I'll have to be selfish here and say I want no part in this bilge any more. Karwynn (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Torinir (talk · contribs) has a grand total of two edits to articles, almost all of his/her contributions have been on Talk pages, AfD's and the like. That would lead one to question just whether he/she has any knowledge of Wikipedia and what it is intended for. In addition, History21 has been accused of using sockpuppets in his hoaxing campaign, and one would love to know if Torinir is another one. I can't give diffs to History21's hoaxes, because they have all been deleted, but I can give you pointers to the Talk pages and the AfD's. Hold on and I'll do that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in the the interests of AGF--which should be adhered to--perhaps we should lay off all the puppetry calls until the pending Checkuser investigation of History21 is completed, as anything else until that is done is unproven. rootology (T) 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you not intending to go away? Do so.Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I didn't say I was unwatching this RfC, just everyone even vaguely involved in ED or post-ED needless drama which I had posted to. rootology (T) 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Torinir also has a fair number of edits for what it's worth. rootology (T) 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he dosen't. He's got edits to one article. [7] He, like your other friends on this RFC, are sockpuppets of someone I pissed off when I stopped them from vandalizing the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you looking at? Your specified history link is to one specific (small) time range and does not represent the full scope of his editing. Also, many people spend a fair deal of their time editing the "behind the scenes" things. Is there something wrong with being a Wikignome that focuses in rv 'ing vandals, or AfD, or looking for bad stuff to Speedy? Look at this and please cease spreading disinformation. He's edited Zalmay Khalilzad, TeamWarfare League, Black budget, etc. rootology (T) 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of my edits are on the TWL page. Obviously, since if they had done any kind of research, they'd realise that I'm a TWL Competition Manager at the site and have knowledge of the workings of the site. The other edits were for vandalism, or in reference to an open MedCab case I'm working on. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a list of all other accounts and IP addresses you have edited from. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipo, all your link shows is that Torinir's first 50 edits are to one article. (The actual number is something like five articles. ;)) If he's a sock, he's a very clever one -- he has some distinct interests that don't match anyone else's. TheronJ 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's contributed to eight Main space articles, but I don't see a rule that says a behind the scense Wikignome type that focuses on other things beyond building outwards facing content is a bad thing. Maybe his interest is more in reading the WP project, and bettering it via fighting vandals and AfDs. rootology (T) 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked the one-segment of edits forward and lost all of his recent work getting involved in major conflicts, spamming his vanity league on other pages, inserting original research and reverting one vandal. Could you find an editor unrelated to prior conflicts with me with thousands of quality main-space edits - someone like Zoe, or MONGO, or Tom Harrison, that disagrees with what I'm doing, instead of getting the editors of questionable value to the encyclopedia to show up? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with what you are doing. You are rude, uncivil, irresponsible, overly aggressive, and have no concept as to how a community functions. Your actions and comments here towards anyone opposed to you have made it clear your continued existence at Wikipedia should be questioned. I am going to take your comments you have made here to someone else. TruthCrusader 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• D*mn, I got an edit conflict and lost all of the diffs. I can't repeat that now, I don't have time, it will have to be later. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, twas me. rootology (T) 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, again, let's please lay off the sockpuppetry claims to try to sway perceptions. The "like your other friends" comment above by Hipocrite is an ill-advised personal attack. I request he remove it unless he can prove it--user has a history of tossing this around repeatedly. Sorry, Hip, but I'm not going to stand for gross insults and attacks like that. I'll remind you again that my Outside View on the RfC, my replies, and summary were exceptionally civil, but your habit of immediately calling someone a puppet if they disagree or take a counter point to you is troubling to me. rootology (T) 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little concern for your troubles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Enough, Hipocrite. Keep it civilized in here. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Go edit an encyclopedia, and stop seeking out conflict for the sake of conflict. You've got a long ways to go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Torinir, but IMO, rootology and Karwynn are indeed simply trying to flame this Rfc.--MONGO 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read that, MONGO. As far as I can tell, rootology has been fairly civil and none of his ideas are outrageous. Are you assuming bad faith because of some prior history, or are there actual edits here that concern you? Thanks, TheronJ 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Theron, MONGO was involved with me in a very, very contentious AfD about the deletion of an article weeks ago. Any frustration or sense of it coming from me is due to the fact that by virtue of trying to be a rational dissenting voice to the deletion oriented groupthink that was dominant in the AfD, that I am now considered an unrepenetant troll by them... I bear no ill will to either of them, but I doubt they believe it. rootology (T) 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I posted a very non-inflammatory Outside View, and actually called for nothing to be done on this valid RfC to him. Simply an assertation that the mass roll back was a bad idea. I then here corrected a mistaken link by Hipocrite which cast Torinir in an incorrect light. It is not Hipocrite's place (nor right) to lodge personal attacks nor for him to demand that Torinir reveal information about himself. Additionally, he has several times attacked me, when I've gone out of my way to be civil here. As the subject of the RfC I feel he's trying to discredit the outside view of himself by Torinir by painting him as a suckpuppet. Additional question for you as an admin, MONGO: Is it appropriate for an editor to constantly label anyone who disagrees with him as a puppet? rootology (T) 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that Hipocrite "constantly" labels anyone who disagrees with him as a sockpuppet...in fact, he and I had a real knock down disagreement about a year ago and he never once told me I was using a sockpuppet account.--MONGO 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to reserve judgement for others now that I'm being placed in the spotlight with accusations of being a sock of some unknown person. You can request a CheckUser on me. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are aware there's about a 0.000001% chance that anything is going to happen to me with respect to this RFC, or the tame attacks I've been lobbing at the brand-new editors who have been repeatedly socking to harass me, right? You find me an editor with a substantial editing history focused on IMPROVING THE ENYCLOPEDIA, as opposed to getting involved in flame wars with people they dislike, and I'll start taking this RFC seriously. Untill then, It's Me, Zoe, Mongo, Tom Harrison, RyanFreisling supporting my actions and TheronJ confused as to how I knew that History21 was participating in repeated hoaxes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And, with respect to you going out of your way to be civil, please review Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking. Unlike treating trolls and vandals like trolls and vandals, it is a blockable offense. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that fact, yes, but the fact is you made what I perceive as a bad edit on a person that is not proven to have been hoaxing, who is not proven to be a sock puppet at this time, who you labeled a sockpuppet and filed the motion against. Regardless of what you think of me or your perception I hate you, if I was trolling you I would have called for your head on my outside view. I threw you a meatball, if you hadn't noticed. "No bad faith, etc., just overdid the editing, should have used more care in this case". Thats it. What does severely bother me is your retailiatory nature, but I've kept quiet on that. As soon as Torinir asked you to be civil here you immediately began working on the article he focuses on. Your accusation of (apparently everyone) being a sockpuppet. And while nothing will likely come of this RfC, it will serve to document your incivility ("I don't give two shits", calling Torinir "gutter-trash"), for any possible future trouble you cause. Why is it such a difficult thing for you to be civil, when people in turn try to be civil to you? Myself, Torinir, and Theron have been perfectly neutral in this--myself until you began to start hurling insults like haymakers, when I asked you to remove them. rootology (T) 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you please stop accusing me of wikistalking you? Show me what edits of yours I've chased down and undone. Or do you mean because I happen to simply read similar sections of WP? AfD, AN/I? It's not like the behind the scenes sections of WP are this sprawling area where people won't see each other. It's a small area. rootology (T) 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually was working on the tags for his article as soon as I looked at his contribution history. Do you deny said tags are innapropriate? Of course you don't - because they are. Users who are involved in unrelated disputes with me (all of the endorsers but one), users who are in this encyclopedia merely to get involved in internet wars, and users who are hoaxers infest this RFC, which is why I'm treating it with the contempt it deserves. The gutter-trash I refer to is Kaelwynn, who is a troll, and the politics-POV warriors, who are politics POV-warriors. I have no desire to be civil to people who are trying to make my life worse. I'm not going to pull punches or lie to make you feel good - you are actively and persistantly damaging the encyclopedia by going after me instead of doing work worth doing. I will not stop accusing you of wikistalking me untill you stop wikistalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the final time, I don't wikistalk you. Please qualify what this is based on or stop saying it, as it is then a personal attack. Either shut up with attacks, or file a complaint with proof that I do, because that's getting tiring. The next time I see that comment from you anywhere outside this page, if it's not an RfC or in front of ArbCom with evidence, I'm taking it to AN/I as a complaint of you trying to discredit and get me banned as an abuse of process. Every time I cross your path and TRY to be civil, you all but slap me in the face. Your general incivility--and yes, I just looked, based on your comments here--is littered across your talk page archives, with many people basically going "wtf?" in response to whatever it is you did. But I of course can't do anything but try to be nice, which I'm going to continue to do, in the assumption that AGF still goes both ways. I'm sure you guys must hate me, since I was an active voice to save the ED article, but whatever, that's a dead horse. Why is it you get completely hostile whenever anyone even begins to question you on here, or do something that goes against what you want? rootology (T) 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you watching my contributions list or reading my talk page with the intent to make my life more difficult and not to improve the encyclopedia? The answer is obviously and clearly yes. This is the definition of wikistalking. You are getting slapped so much because you keep crossing so much, and I'm so often in the right. Stop wikistalking me. You have edits to like 30 mainspace articles - unless you were hunting me out, it would be impossible for our paths to cross twice. Like the doctor said, if it hurts when you do that, don't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossed paths: ED article and it's subsequent AfD/DRV (general editorial disagreements as I see it), AN/I related to ED (3rring each other, and I think that was it directly), the deleted MONGO RfC (your epic and uncalled for torching of me), and this RfC. Incidentally, I found this RfC by reading AN/I, not by reading your talk page or your anything. I saw the hoo ha about History21 and went to see what it was about out of curiosity, which led here. By slapped I mean your unceasing personal attacks on me, accusations that I run Encyclopedia Dramatica, that I'm a *puppet, etc.--when aside from our little 3rr fracas I don't believe I've ever directly attacked you in any way, aside from asking you to be blocked from editing for 24 hours during the ED thing around 7/20ish. Maybe the 19th? And again, take it to AN/I with evidence if you think I'm stalking you, or stop this childish and immature game--frankly, it's like your sulking and pouting that someone chastised you. And *AGAIN*, my outside view is the LEAST CRITICAL ONE OF ALL. I didn't even call for a warning, let alone a block, or a pound of flesh! By the way, since (just peeked at your contribs in response to this) you hang out in AfD, admin voting, and the like, does that mean I can't read those now or contribute there? rootology (T) 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This RFC was never mentioned on WP:ANI. Are you mistaken or lying? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"I saw the hoo ha about History21 and went to see what it was about out of curiosity, which led here." History21 hoax report on ANI > his contribs > TheronJ > here. rootology (T) 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...there are many, many posts to AN/I and AN, so why pick this one to follow...curiously?--MONGO 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he was accused of salting disinformation throughout WP got me really curious to see what he had been doing--I hadn't seen an accusation of that nature before; I went to see what he had been up to out of curiosity. It all led to the RfC, which I filed the most detailed outside view of all, which--for the 100th time--didn't even attack Hip. Look at what I said to him in the above conversation with him, and my interaction today with him when he (forgot to mention it above) commented on my Peer Review that I posted. I've been doing online communities since about 1989ish in various forms. I honestly (don't take this the wrong way) don't care enough about anyone online that I don't also know IRL to get worked up about anything. If it seems like I do because of the verbosity of my replies, it's simply because I type fast and tend to be long winded. rootology (T) 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You sure your recollection is accurate? [8]? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Morton leaves the comment, I glance at it, read some of the things and follow the paths back and see when it's been RfC'd I figure why not weigh in (48 hours later). I mean, seriously man: our interactions are hardly what I'd call stalking, on any level, at all. Because we happened to work on the same things before this? Your name was familiar to be due to this, I saw the RfC filed, and I weighed in. Is that stalkerish? Or just because I made a good faith attempt to analyze what had happened? rootology (T) 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

THanks as well for the extra attack that you edited out, accusing me of "totally fucking lying". AGF... rootology (T) 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate accusations of two blockable offenses (sockpuppeting and stalking) leveled at me and my defending myself versus such lies with the same fervor your defending yourself vs. an RfC over a single edit is a problem...? Please stop trying to bait me, as it's unproductive. rootology (T) 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You gripe and complain about people getting stuck on off-encyclopedia disputes, and then you follow those up with comments like these. You can't write an encyclopedia (not here, anyway) without discussing disputes, and as long as you show no regard for the concerns of others and refuse to be civil, discussion is impossible. These disdainful flames and wild generalizations are a severe hindrance to encyclopedia writing. Don't you realize that cooperation is impossible without mutual respect and consideration? Karwynn (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Look , WP:CIVIL mentions it specifically: Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed. Maybe mediation is what's required here. Karwynn (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not participate in meditation with either of you two. Perhaps you should go make over 1000 mainspace edits and get back to me, k? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit-count-itis much? I mean seriously, this is over commentary about a lone edit, and you're going to white phosphorus in response to our gentle breeze. You're overreacting. rootology (T) 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hip edited out and thankfully changed the attacks here, for what its worth. But I agree, the lack of CIVIL getting hurled over a simple EDIT is disconcerting... rootology (T) 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Admirable to be sure regarding your number of edits, but WP:CIVIL and other policies regulating editor interaction apply to all users, not just enough with enough edits to satisfy your standards. We all deserve respect; veteran contrbutors like yourself, still-getting-comfortables like me, and newbies like History21, who still deserves civility and respect even if he is a hoaxer and troll. Thousands of edtors deal with this kind of stuff without being rude, snide and condescending, and I fail to see why such an experienced editor like yourself would choose not to be one of them. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, start with User:Zoe/Anne Eyre Heller and User:Zoe/Jehu Eyre, which are restorations I have done of now-deleted Talk pages. I'll try to come up with the other stuff later. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And look at User:Zoe/Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States, which is a restoration of the now-deleted hoax article Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States, which User:History21 wrote. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a troll, Hip, and have removed that comment at Theron's (and now George's) suggestion. Please consider reciprocating to everyone with the previously edited out insults (towards Tor, and others), if possible. Thanks. rootology (T) 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, my apologies. History21 is confirmed as a sock puppet, and I'm adding a note to my Outside View. As I said I would, I apologize, and striking what I wrote. I'll say that if he wasn't a sock, the mass RV was overreaching, but as he's a sock, good catch. The only thing I can really add is that we all should be more civil.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECK#History21rootology (T) 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize as well and endorse what rootology says here. Good catch, Hipocrite. Karwynn (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow this all seems rather anti-climactic now, but having spent a fair amount of time on it, I'm going to post it anyway.

(disclosure: Rootology asked me to look at this, I don't know why, maybe because I was helpful to him in a small unrelated matter. As far as I know, I've never interacted with any of you.)

I looked at the whole RFC, the AFDs on the Eyre family, the Grange Estate article, and I even delved into WorldCat and the Library of Congress looking for the Eyre family, also the checkuser confirmation. Based on that review, I'd like to offer the following comments.

History21

1. The Eyre family information was, at best, overwritten original research based on amateur genealogy web sites and self-published family histories, and violated WP:NOR and WP:V at the very least. What little verfiable information there is does not support notability as far as I can tell. (As a genealogist myself, I am very familiar with these kinds of sources and stories.) However, calling it a deliberate hoax (as opposed to enthusiastic original research) is not supported by the information I have access to.
2. Following the deletion of Eyre Empire in March 2005, History21 failed to apply the lessons of that AfD (namely, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS) and instead recreated the articles.
3. Lilyana and History21's edits to Judy Feder, deleted by Hipocrite as not verified, are appropriately deleted under WP:NOT a campaign website.
4. All three accounts fail to grasp wikipedia's style of encyclopedic writing, with tendencies toward soapboxing in various places.
5. In an attempt to deflect crticism about unverified information, History21 has (in the case of Judy Feder and Grange Estates) inserted copyvios from web sites.
6. Without passing judgement on whether the Eyre mess was a deliberate hoax or enthusiastic poorly sourced original research, History21 has forfeited the right to an automatic assumption of good faith through sockpuppeteering. (This edit, with the summary (All of this information can be found in the official website if you take the time to read it. I have not engaged in the same kind of ridiculous hoaxing as Lilyana, and do not appreciate these attacks.) is particularly instructive here.)

Hipocrite

1. I would argue that while Hipocrite has been properly concerned about the content of History21's recent edits, his concern has been expressed rather non-selectively. For example, he labeled these edits [9] to First Family as a possible hoax [10] even though History21 had provided 6 inline references. History21 and Hipocrite each reverted the hoax tag once before it was finally removed by Zetawoof. Hipocrite also tagged History21's recent edit to Judy Feder as a possible hoax before replacing it with copyvio. I think this shows a certain overzealousness and an automatic presumption of bad faith, which is not the same thing as lack of entitlement to a presumption of good faith.
2. Hipocrite's pursuit of History21's edits is well-intentioned, but he should avoid automatically or blanket reverting everything, and should apply the same due diligence when reviewing History21's contributions as he thinks History21 should apply when making contributions (under the principle two wrongs don't make a right).
3. Hipocrite's use of the term "gutter trash" is rude and unnecessary.

Torinir

1. Although not a party, he has been subject to attack for appearing to be a sockpuppet. Mackensen did not ID him as a further sockpuppet of History21, but Torinir's history suggests he is a sockpuppet of someone. It is not a violation of policy for an editor to use a second account for edits that might be controversial (such as commenting on AfDs and RFCs) so long as the main account does not also participate. However, it's not a nice thing to do, and such editors should expect that they may have diminished credibility.

Proposed resolution

1. History21 to be kept on a short leash for the forseeable future. Extra scrutiny of his contributions is well-earned.
2. Hipocrite to be commended for defending the integrity of the encyclopedia, cautioned to apply due diligence when reviewing History21's contributions, and asked to refrain from using personal epithets in lieu of content-based discussion.

Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems dead on to me. Thanks for putting in the time. TheronJ 01:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Matching IP addresses do not automatically mean that someone is sockpuppeting! See my messages on User:TheronJ's talk page. I am disgusted with this whole thing. I suppose that my contributions (which, as has been noted by many here, are legitimate) mean nothing in the face of my sharing an IP address with two users when the IP address happens to cover approximately five high schools and, I am sure, several public libraries. I am considering leaving this encyclopedia, pending the results of all of this.

History21 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)History21

That's too much of a coincidence to believe. Just get a new account and drop the apparent hoaxing and no one will ever know the difference. Karwynn (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)