User talk:Hipocrite/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 August 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<IE>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Cold Fusion

I rolled back your edits to Cold fusion for these reasons:

• [1] Rossi was indeed convicted, though whether or not the alleged crime was a felony or not is a matter of law that I don't know. However, it appears that he was later acquited. See the Wikipedia article on Andrea Rossi if you want to pursue this. Rossi does not have a high reputation for delivering what he promises, but "convicted felon" is probably an overstatement.

• [2] The journals mentioned in the article that you called "off-topic or fringe" aren't. Plain and simple. They are indeed respectable peer-reviewed journals. See a discussion of Naturwissenschaften on the talk page of the article. This is roughly equivalent to Scientific American, though more technical, less popular. For example, see [3].

• [4] That was long-standing content. "Woo" is not a crisply defined criterion, but there is definitely solid research being published, and has been for more than twenty years. Just because you are ignorant of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You think you could get a Review of Woo into Naturwissenschaften? Good luck!

• I noticed that your edits to Cold fusion followed a mention of me on the only other page on RW that you had ever edited under this name[5]. This makes me think you are likely the Wikipedia editor known as Hipocrite. Trolling as usual? --Abd (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a crank. Are you a crank? Do you think you are exceptional in some way? Has that exceptional been confirmed via awards or degrees? Have you been diagnosed with a mental illness, ever? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolls certainly may ask lots of questions. How did you get to be this way? --Abd (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're trying to piss me off. You're failing cranky crankerson. I think I'll write more mean things about cold fusion fraudsters that my buds will revert back into article for me. Who should be savaged next? Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You're a liar about not being pissed, but you've been pissed for years. What set it off? And why are you taking it out on this wiki? That's not my article, you know, and what you've been changing I didn't create. Thanks for your honesty as to your intentions. --Abd (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the notice on his userpage, "Professional troll - doing it longer and harder than you"? Yet, despite receiving fair warning, YHBT, and YHL, so HAND. Tisane (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In other news

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Hipocrite! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome to RationalWiki! Don't let Abd put you off. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been here for years! Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Under this account name? You have often used others. Special:Contributions/Hipocrite shows two edits within 3 minutes, January 8, 2010. No other old edits. That's "been here"? Looks more like "I was here for a few minutes more than two years ago." Hipocrite, you are an expert troll. You know how to say something that is just short of a total lie. You've had years to develop the skill. --Abd (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You precious little QQ bear, are you saying that I must have other accounts here! You is so smrt! I'm probably at least one of the other people who is harassing you - wait, perhaps I'm one of your supporters in my other guise, worming my way deep into your heart so that you tell me something embarrassing. You should probably avoid ALL HUMAN CONTACT, because it might be me! Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Hipocrite responds to charges of socking that were not made. No, I was referring to your exaggeration of your presence here, then noted the possibility that it wasn't exaggerated, if you have other accounts. Fortunately, there are few people who smell as bad as you.

I'll say one thing: when I was an active Wikipedian, my real social life suffered greatly. Not healthy. Not going back to that. I'm grateful that I was banned. It removed the temptation. Oh, I did sock once, and sock farming for fun and profit remains optional. Especially profit. I wasn't paid for editing until I was banned. Funny how that worked. See, when I was banned, the community revoked the implicit user agreement, leaving me with no obligation to follow community policies. It was a point that I often made before being banned, when others were involved. Way before being banned, I called being blocked "promotion." Hence Scibaby, who can waste vast swathes of administrative time, with total impunity. It becomes a hobby, a brilliant creation of the system, implemented through tolerated cabal abuse. --Abd (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. Hipocrite is welcome on RW, however, the context of his appearance is ... interesting. I edited the Cold fusion article on Conservapedia. It had been modified with plagiarized content from RW, plus it was generally poorly written and inaccurate. Because I'd mentioned RW, this was noticed here on the only page that Hipocrite had ever edited here, more than two years ago. So that page could be e-mail watchlisted, possibly, so Hipocrite may now have had a clue that I was editing here.

Hipocrite is a true troll, he has frequently acted, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, to start edit and flame wars. With the Wikipedia article on Cold fusion, pursuing a totally different agenda, payback for an ArbComm case that I had filed -- and won -- against one of his friends, he'd been revert warring with multiple editors, but went to the Request for page protection page and claimed I'd been revert warring with him -- that was a lie -- to get the page protection, then he went back to the article to make a major and totally outrageous change, before the admins on RfPP could act. Nobody supported that change. The ensuing flap provided cover for another admin to ban the both of us from the topic (apparently based on my work to try to find consensus on a decent version by discussion and polling), and ultimately led to the desysopping of the admin (William M. Conolley) who originally topic-banned me. Hipocrite didn't care that he was banned and, in fact, that admin lifted his ban quickly. Not for me. I was the real target.

That admin was very popular, and this explains why David Gerard, a very well-known Wikipedian, here, just restored Hipocrite's changes.

These people don't care about RationalWiki, period. They will cheerfully coordinate as needed to create an appearance of a majority position, they've done that for years on Wikipedia. They know that most editors won't take the time to research history and sources.

I'm assuming this is the same person as the Wikipedia editor Hipocrite. That could be untrue. It is also a possibility that Hipocrite's appearance here was unrelated to the Conservapedia mention. If so, it's a mighty coincidence.

Hipocrite is highly experienced and knows his way around a wiki. He is not about to be driven off by anything that I could possibly write on his Talk page.

He would probably have been sanctioned on Wikipedia, along with the desysopped admin, except that the admin protected him as the case was being filed, revert-warred on the Arbitration Committee case page and on the Hipocrite talk page (another admin promptly resigned over this), and Hipocrite, as he'd done many times, pretended to retire. The amazing thing was that, until that admin finally went way too far, he was able to get away with all of that. It shows how powerful this faction was, at one time. They are weaker now, they've lost a few cases, and so ... they come here. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously a crank. That was a lot of words. I ignored them because you are nuts. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't ignore them, you responded to them. TL;DR is a response, and you said more than that. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Some problems with your reasoning: TWIGO:CP is one of the wiki's two main discussion hubs, and as such is one of the wiki's most often edited pages. The chances, therefore, that an email watchlist is involved are slim - two years of repeatedly clearing it till now? It would also seem rather unlikely that the CP thing is related at all, as he needs to have been watching the page - but presumably nowhere else, least he find you sooner - for two and a half years without doing anything else but lurk. While you may be right in claiming that its him, don't let that cloud your thinking over whether the CP incident is a coincidence or not. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 01:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a lot of words, but I promise you I don't have TWIGO email watchlisted, though I certainly watch it for the lulz! Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably right. --Abd (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That didn't sound lunatic enough so I spruced it up with COLORS, and a picture of a unicorn. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Hipocrite. Your talk page. You must have forgotten the unicorn. Busy caressing it? --Abd (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unicorns are like non-fraudulent cold fusion experiments. THEY DONT EXIST. Hipocrite (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

La, la, la, it doesn't exist! Repeat as needed. --Abd (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The seekrit cabal

So are you a member of the ultra-sooper-seekrit cabal? VOX^HUMANA 23:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, Voxhumana, see the Evidence in that case. The overall Evidence page may be seen at [6]. A subpage that lists relevant participations is at [7]. As you can see, I considered Hipocrite to have had a pattern of activity associating him with the faction identified. I did not create a specific page or section about him because he was, at the time "retired." As you can see, I explicitly distinguish what I was talking about from any sort of "sooper-seekrit cabal." The idea that a "cabal" -- using the ordinary English definition -- must be "sooper-seekrit" to be harmful to the project is a trope that was frequently asserted by ... faction members, who often had "Cabal Approved" on their User pages and would frequently joke about it. I only scratched the surface of available evidence, I was totally overwhelmed in that case, because the faction finally concentrated on it, I'd been considered only a minor threat before. I only brought up the cabal issue because they poured in.

I don't know who you were on Wikipedia, and you don't really seem to me to be a member of that faction, though you quite likely agreed with them from time to time. Rather, more likely, you are part of the large chunk of Wikipedia users who drank the Kool-Aid. You seem to have absorbed and remembered as Truth many things that were asserted by them; that is part of how the cabal was successful for a long time. People AGF'd them -- but not those they were banning. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. There was no cabal (hence the link I gave), only rational people trying to stop your obsessive campaign of utter bullshit. I was never one of them, I never have had any contact with you on WP at any time, and I've never edited Cold Fusion at WP before or since. I only know of your case because I was an Arbcom clerk when the 2009 case happened. You can bang on as much as you want about how people were trying to "hide the TRUTH" but I (and soon, everyone else at RW) know you're just a batshit insane old crank. Over and out. VOX^HUMANA 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Adb, Vox wasn't even talking to you. Not everything is about you. Dial down the batshit insanity a little, hmm? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 11:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I invented the super sekrit cabal. Thank you for replying to the cabal signal that I sent out on the sideband cabal globalnet (we attached it to the internet in the 1950s to fight the capitalists.) Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat so I got your message loud and clear. By the way, I've discovered how to truly achieve cold fusion - you need to dilute the deuterium in water hundreds of times over first (this will increase its potency). VOX^HUMANA 12:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Great work, Hipocrite. So reliable. Now, everyone repeat after me, TINC, TINC, TINC. refs to [8]

"Cabal" indicates a faction that exerts power through collective action. It is distinguished from the actual will of the collective community (Though Jimbo referred to the "administrative cabal" when he set up the admin system); cabals on wikis function though common watchlists and the identification of friends and enemies, so if cabal members sees a warning for revert warring on the talk page of another, they go to the article and support their friend. If they can in this way muster more editors, they can control the article, unless someone actually takes the matter to ArbComm, which is almost suicidal if the cabal has a few dozen members, some with administrative privileges. (I succeeded and was banned. "You're right, this was admin abuse, and, by the way, we don't like you, so you are out of here." If you were a normal editor, you'd have put up with the crap or gone somewhere else.)

The cabal avoids dispute resolution process, since they are Right^(TM). Blind reversion, with no attempt to seek consensus, then, is typical. For most editors, going to ArbComm and other advanced dispute resolution processes were impossibly arcane. Naive editors would revert war with them, nonplussed by outrageous and often uncivil reversion, and thus were often blocked. I was able to defeat cabal revert warring by creating RfCs to discover true community consensus. It worked. It was also way too much effort, and the results were typically confined to the specific article. The "cabal" on Wikipedia was maybe two dozen editors at the most. They were opposed, generally, to established ArbComm positions on fringe science and pseudoscience, and would often argue against administrative recusal policy. I was amazed to see what ArbComm would tolerate (open defiance of protective policy, declared by admins). I also watched clerks tolerate cabal revert warring on the ArbComm case pages, and that was at the time when Voxhumana was a clerk, from what he says, and the revert warring was to protect Hipocrite and Mathsci. Mathsci hasn't shown up here yet, AFAIK. Both of them are still active on Wikipedia, whining about this or that.

Anyway, once again, welcome to RationalWiki, Hipocrite. You can speak your mind freely here, that's one benefit of this place. And by the way, if you want me to stay off your Talk page, I will. Here, I don't have to warn you before I block you, for example. In fact, just because I can, I did. --Abd (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Testes

Yeah. Hipocrite (talk) when Tisane was in jail for threatening to kill people 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind

Would you be so kind as to assist a couple of folks with a bit of Clue? Sophie Wilder apparently does't know where my blog is despite having caught me red handed copying Fun:Quacktionary from it, and both she and Tyrannis appear to believe that I am not allowed to delete a stale conversation from my talk page even though it remains forever in the fossil record and it is of precisely zero future relevance as that conversation is over long since. If I want to wrangle with people over pointless trivia I can find an endless supply at Wikipedia, I really don't want to start having angry conversations here as well. It's so wearing. Ta, JzG (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite's Law

“”When new facts are brought into a debate, the person who is countered by the facts is more likely to change their argument than their position.

You like? Pi 3:14 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I approve. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and harassment

Repeatedly blanking the content of a user space essay with a contrary comment is vandalism.[9][10] Doing this with the essay of a banned user is harassment.

You claim to be a professional troll. No, definitely an amateur.

I have moved your comment to the attached talk page. We don't censor essays. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not censorship to not host pedophile advocacy. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing other persons user pages is contrary to the local rules. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

what's that got to do with anything. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been taking on a new direction, but I have to say, I've been thinking about my own protection, It scares me you feel this way. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Professional troll] trolls him/herself, imagines dark shapes in the night. Nothing actually there, but s/he's scared. If a professional troll self-trolls, is that like a whore masturbating? Is it that entertaining? Ah, so many questions, life is so short. I will do some Research. Meanwhile,

• Who is Hipocrite talking to?
• What is "this way" that is a feeling that scares Hipocrite?
• What is the "new direction"?
• And what does all this have to do with trolling by vandalizing a harmless user essay? --Abd (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sysop

Here you go -- Nx / talk 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Archives

We don't delete the content of talk page archives. Especially when it's not your page. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review [11]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And that means what? JzG isn't allowed to delete stuff from his archive either. Just leave it alone ok? --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I will if Abd does as well. Having him taunt people who aren't playing the same game is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My reversion of JzG's deletion, which hid comments from many RatWikians, was not taunting, it was just enforcing policy. I informed JzG of the policy, which you obviously know about, because you responded. Your action was contrary to policy. While archiving to history is something that I've done, I've only done it with my own comments, to make a presentation more compact. My guess is that the problem with doing it in general is that it's not searchable. Talk page archives can be searched. Now, back to our regularly scheduled trolling. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are a huge dick. Go back to raping your kids. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you

I think the silliness will not go away absent a clarification so I have posted a question in the saloon bar. And in case you didn't know (which you probably do) Abd was banned form Wikipedia largely for his tireless advocacy of cold fusion crankery, endless wall of text rambling self-justifications, and steadfast refusal to accept that anybody but Abd is ever right. He self-identifies as autistic, I believe, but that may be mis-remembering. His agenda in respect of cold fusion at least is entirely orthogonal to the core tenets of RationalWiki - but I suspect you have already researched the back-story of Abd, Jed Rothwell, Pierre Carbonnelle and the rest, which can be summed up as: ZOMG! Free energy suppression! Teh evil gubmint! Teh cabalz! JzG (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello? JzG, Hipocrite was very involved on Wikipedia, trolling there, as he has here, and it led ultimately to the desysopping of William M. Connolley. "Free energy suppression" is an irrelevant argument, it's not mine, and it's not that of Jed Rothwell or Pierre Carbonelle, it has nothing to do with science, and Cold fusion is not "free energy." I don't think you really care, but this is the latest peer-reviewed review of the field in a major mainstream journal (you can read a preprint on lenr-canr.org). The pseudoskeptical position (and legitimate categorical skepticism) disappeared from the scientific journals almost a decade ago, except for a single letter that was demolished. Science moves on. Some folks don't. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)