Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite

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 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: 09:54, 20 June 2024 (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.[1]

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., [2], [3].

Note: Original hoax report on WP:ANI has been archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#A_multitude_of_hoaxes

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Hipocrite reverts History21, citing his own hoax report as justification in the edit history.[4]
2. Same.[5]
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. [6], [7]
4. Hipocrite accuses History21 of a "substantial history of adding hoax information to the encyclopedia," without diffs or links.[8]
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.[9]

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. Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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.[10], [11]

• Hipocrite refused, arguing that Zoe's "final warning" means that he "does not have to" [12], and that History21's alleged "history" of hoaxing means that he is on special scrutiny.[13].

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.[14]

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.[15]

TheronJ

• I raised these issues with Hipocrite.[16].

• 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.[17]

• 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.[18]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. TheronJ 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Uggh. Given that History21 is a sock, the bottom line is that Hipocrite was right and I was wrong. I apologize for wasting everyone's time. TheronJ 01:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. History21 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21
3. TruthCrusader 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. rootology 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Karwynn (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) While I'm still not comfortable with the incivility, I'm confident that a break will put a stop to it. Happy editing to all! Karwynn (talk) 15:21, 3 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.

It is a shame TheronJ has been duped by trolls and vandals.

Rootology needs to stop wikistalking me and get on with doing something useful.

Rangeley and TruthCrusader must stop treating wikipedia like a battleground.

History21 should be given a nice long break from the encyclopedia for his hoaxing.

I should be awarded a barnstar for requiring strong sources and removing unsourced material that appeared legitimate but may very well have been inaccurate, and requiring strong sources for all information inserted by editors who have a questionable relationship with the truth.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Quit stalking a valid user who is trying to deal with a disruptive troll/sockpuppet, and return to the job of creating an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Amendment 1

Karwynn is a disruptive troll and should be given the same nice long break History21 is due.

Users who endorse this amendment:

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by MONGO

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.

It is difficult to accept that an editor has reformed if there is not substantive demostration that they are following policies such as WP:V, which Hipocrite is a strong proponent of. With a history of vandalism, [19], rather unnecessary edits that are unreferenced [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], creating articles that still lack references [25], working to keep articles that he has either created or worked on that are possibly hoaxes since they cannot be reliably referenced, [26], [27] and ongoing issues about adding text that is possibly a copyvio [28] are reasons that explain Hipocrite's summary reverts of History21's edits. I see that History21 has been counciled about these matters recently, [29], so I simply don't agree that Hipocrite has engaged in doing anything other than protect wikipedia from someone that continues to not follow policies when editing.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --MONGO 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I almost want to endorse this because any user should feel free to remove unsourced hoax material and to follow the edits of another user known to do so. But in this case I see good faith edits made by an inexperienced user, not wholesale hoaxing and copyvio. That's why individual users shouldn't go on deletion rampages. Did anyone ever offer to mentor or give help to this user before Hipocrite bit their head off? SchmuckyTheCat 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by rootology

Per this History21 is a confirmed sock of the other users. As promised if this was confirmed, withdrawing my outside statement. Given their sock status it was a good edit by Hip and catch. My only suggestion is that this sort of edit should always be done after it's confirmed of a sock status. I'll leave everyone else to debate the merits of things beyond this, as my only concern with the RfC was the scope of the edit itself. Other issues of civility etc., as brought up can be addressed by others if they choose... rootology (T) 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
2. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Edits should stay or go based on their individual merit. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. History21 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)History21
6. Karwynn (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC) WP:BITE helps Wikipedia grow, I stand by this un-struck statement, however, Hipocrite was not at fault for WP:BITE here in any way whatsoever.
7. Arkon 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I find the incivility, and unbending opinions the most disturbing. Wikibreak encouraged.

Outside view by Zoe

User:History21 has abrogated all rights to assumption of good faith because of his repeated hoaxing, massive salting of false information, and repeated failure to provide meaningful references to justify his hoaxes. History21 is a troll, and should be treated as such. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Hmm... Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. MCB 05:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC) as per my own outside view below
4. History21 doth protest too much, methinks. Zoe and Hipocrite should be commended for their vigilance Bwithh 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Torinir

With comments like the OV by Zoe and some of the cited comments from Hipocrite, I cannot hope for any civil resolution to this case. Bad faith is definitely being shown and it's never appropriate without some solid diffs to show support for such a viewpoint. Blanket reversions that damage articles are never appropriate, regardless of actual vandalism or not.

From what I've seen, this was WP:BITE that spiralled out of control.

I'm suggesting a 0RR restriction on Hipocrite temporarily (solely due to the damage done to the one article by his blind reversion), a mentorship for History21 to help him become a better editor, and a warning to both Hipocrite and Zoe regarding their conduct toward other editors.

Withdrawn due to confirmation of sockpuppetry by History21.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. - rootology (T) 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. History21 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)History21
4. Karwynn (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Will change if more AGF is shown strike per [30] Karwynn (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Salix alba

Outside view by Salix alba

This RFC does not help in building an Encylopedia and User:Hipocrite is showing clear signs of wikistress, resulting in an increased number of curt messages on talk pages (some unrelating to this case).

A one week wikibreak for all, and drop the whole thing. A mentorship for History21 to help him become a better editor, and a warning to both Hipocrite and Zoe regarding their conduct toward other editors.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC) With the exception that I will take no break, nor will I accept any warning about stopping hoaxers from perpetuating hoaxes, and in the event that History21 is a sockpuppet, I will accept the abject apology from everyone who signed opinions contrary to mine.
3. TheronJ 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I don't know that anyone needs a break from actually providing new content, but if there's a way to take a break from policing other editors/admins, I suspect we could all use it.

User:Hipocrite has now taken a wikibreak. --Salix alba (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Kevin Breitenstein

The case is most interesting. I feel newbie biting is a fleeting reason, History21 is whitnessed in 2005 defending Eyre-related articles, yet the articles continue to pop up. The feeling of something amiss with these articles exists for me as well. Hipocrite seems to have caught onto this matter, and has attempted to scrutize another editor's potentially badly sourced material. However, it is a light collection of evidence coupled with some Gut_feelings. Hipocrite should not have gone to such extremes such as blindly reverting changes in bulk. Such actions should be reserved for much worse circumstances. Kevin_b_er 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Darkfred

I have been watching Hipocrite for quite some time. He is not diplomatic. But he is usually right, and always works in the best interest of wikipedia. Do not Censure him for doing what needed to be done. Challenging subtle trolls and hoaxsters takes guts. You cannot continue to assume good faith even after proof of malice is presented. Not all vandalism appears in bright glowing red letters. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Agree 1000%. Trolls pounce and bold editors fix it - then the trolls attempt to spin, cajole and use ANY evidence of less-than-ideal conduct on an editor's part to attempt to smear them. Standard operating procedure for trolls... which is all the more reason to support valued editors/admins who are willing to combat trolls, and to be understanding when (just as in this case) they get a little frustrated as all the socks and co-trolls (like the ED folks) come out of the woodwork for a pile on. Good job, Hipo. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, trolls/vandals can be duplicitious and/or in Jekell and Hyde moods. Hipocrite and Zoe should be commended for their vigilance Bwithh 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to close

The complainant has been formally proven as a sockpuppet/eer and sometime hoaxer, making this case essentially baseless. As an aside, requiring that edits be properly sourced is valid per policy, and it is legitimate for admins to watch users who have been identified as problematic, to do so is not Wikistalking. At least one of the original certifiers has withdrawn support. I move that this RfC be closed and preferably deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to close this...--MONGO 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to close. I'm not sure what the policy is for deleting WTCs. TheronJ 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy is "don't". Why would you? And to clarify, the complainant was TheronJ, not History21, and TheronJ's not a sockpuppeteer unless I missed something. Karwynn (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

True but Theron was acting on behalf of History21 and has since withdrawn his support. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:05, 29 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.