During the climate change case at ArbCom I confronted Hipocrite about a comment he made on Tim Lambert’s blog saying he was “needed” at wikipedia – Lambert then immediately went to wikipedia to help Connolley and Hipocrite with a content dispute unrelated to climate change.
What was Hipocrite’s defense?
Well, that known sockmaster of old and unknown sockmaster of new gave us this gem:
2005? That’s the best you’ve got? And you co-run blog with a banned user, who is now sockpuppetering with proxies that has explicit “how to make a new account that won’t arouse suspicion you are a sock” instructions? Right, it’s all clear.
His immediate reaction is to cry, “But there be an statute of limitations on cabals! You got nuthin’ on me!” That’s odd, usually an innocent person, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, will proclaim their innocence – Hipocrite merely evokes a legalistic defense and attacks GoRight and myself.
What is the significance of this? Hipocrite assumed he was guilty of the charges and tried to deflect attention away from himself – an innocent person would’ve said the evidence was falsified or misinterpreted . Not only that, if he assumed he was guilty of off-wiki coordination then he is also implicating Tim Lambert (recall this post for a refresher) and William Connolley.
Of course, as I told Hipocrite, criminals tend to get better at committing crime as they become more experienced – it is likely impossible to discover such blatant evidence of cabalistic coordination these days since they know to keep that information private, which means his defense merely boils down to the fact that he is a better criminal now and you won’t be able to pin anything on him.
My message to Hipocrite is simple – once a cabal, always a cabal.