A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Moulton]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendentious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up.

That's an accurate assessment. Filll's representations are not especially well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. If I were there, I would supply copious evidence to debunk his assertions. But I am not there because Filll engineered the Spammish Inquisition to remove me.

I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense.

Filll, more than anyone on the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, reviewed every version of the list, every name on the list, and every effort by anyone known to have gotten their name off the list. I believe he may have been the one most instrumental in compiling the List of Signatories of the Dissent Petition.

What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance!

I am in favor of objective reporting, in a manner that achieves an impeccable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in writing articles for an encyclopedia.

So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project.

I confess that I have utterly failed in my foolish quest to educate that cabal.

[Moulton]

From the talk page colloquy...

Decorum

Things have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[Sxeptomaniac]

From the talk page colloquy...

Decorum

Things have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at Wikipedia Review culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think.

[Castle Rock]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

[Moulton]

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me.

I also noticed the absurd branching out into Affective Computing, and Odd Nature decided to mess with the James Tour article as well. They couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article, so they went to find one somewhere else, I think.

That will probably backfire on them.

[Cla68]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 6th May 2008, 11:38pm

[Kato]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

Raul is a weird kind of anti-Wikipedian. Judging by his ongoing antics, he is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each the non-negotiable tenets.

He's a marvel.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Heh. I found the whole "Moulton as puppetmaster" scenario quite laughable. We exchanged a number of PMs here on the issue, and I don't recall you ever asking me to do more than look at the problems. It seems beyond their comprehension that you could have had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition.

I'd be more than willing to release any PMs or E-Mails to dispel the notion that anyone is doing more than what their own conscience and personal values dictate.

Thanks. I'll let you know if I decide to do that, but I don't think it will be necessary, as vague insinuations are more their style. Making claims that can be actively proven false would defeat their purpose, I believe.

Of course, since I've admitted communicating with you, the anti-ID crew now probably considers me your meatpuppet, in addition to their assumption that I'm already promoting ID, or some such nonsense.

Didn't we overlap on WP before I was indef-blocked? I think you even commented in the RfC that Filll filed against me.

Yep. That would be my first interaction with you, actually. I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

[dogbiscuit]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing.

I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment).

This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep

[Kato]

I haven't paid that much attention to this clique over the years, but the more I read here, the more ridiculous they seem. The more dumb they appear.

I simply fail to accept that they can be so stupid as to not understand the matter of the petition, how it was used and so on. Geez, these ID cranks have been splicing up images of Scientists on Videos for years to manipulate the debate in the US. Poor old Dawkins can barely answer his phone lest some ID crank tapes him saying something and uses it against him.

Yet the damn obvious backstory behind this petition remains a mystery to Raul's posse who keep getting it wrong. Probably on purpose.

Of course, Moulton's demeanor has hardly helped matters since he arrived at WP last year, and it would have been preferable if someone had offered to be his "agent" as he acted as an "agent" for the BLP victims, but that is beside the point.

How on earth Jim62sch, Odd Nature and Raul still allowed to edit at the place is beyond me.

[Moulton]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

[dogbiscuit]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

[Derktar]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.

[dogbiscuit]

Too many times have we seen this before. A new user starting out, doesn't really know the ropes, they quickly find themselves at odds with one of the power-players and become immersed in the wiki-politics game and then BAM, they fall into the trap.

I do think Moulton should now be promoted to the highest rank of honour that we can provide*, not only socked out of existence, but blocked for not wanting to write an encyclopedia, and still fuelling a mega drama-fest edit war some 9 months after he last edited an article. Way to go, Moulton.

*Well, there had to be a catch, you've already got your own avatar and your own campaign, so I think we've run out of gifts.

[Cla68]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

What I find amazing is that these people, knowing that they are editing in the full view of a large number of watchers, including members of ArbCom (who themselves must be in more agonies of anticipation of how they are going to swing this one when it inevitably ends up at ArbCom) actually must believe what they are doing is sensible. That is the scary thing.

I think they should be pulled over, sat them down and someone needs to play them the video tape evidence. Your good at RFCs aren't you? (And you should note that I am an editor of adequate standing as I make that comment).

This is a gem: Fill's been watching too many episodes of 24. Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep

Jim62sch has already been taken to ArbCom once for his behavior, so an RfC wouldn't be necessary for him. He's on his second strike. An RfC is very time-consuming to draft and I'd rather, of course, be working on articles on subjects that I find interesting to me. But, if they keep up this garbage and refuse to correct their behavior on their own, then some more adult intervention may become necessary.

[tarantino]

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

It's amusing that Rau654, Filll et. al. have chosen to engage Relata refero in a battle of wits, but have arrived unarmed save for Mark Pellegrini's banhammer.

You will be civil on this page, or I will block you myself. Is this clear? Raul654

Say, Mark, that isn't a killer chihuahua, is it?

[Piperdown]

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

Holy shit. Cla68 is still kicking ass and taking names. You got some serious stamina, Chuck. I couldn't stand another minute with that W-P bullshit after the Gary Moreland Harris affair.

[Moulton]

I noticed that, rather than work with you regarding the problems, they'd actively baited you into behavior that eventually helped them get you blocked. (I notice that they now refer to you as banned, which is not really the case, as far as I recall.)

The principal troller was User:Baegis, who registered expressly for that purpose.

Stunning. Your case started out dry and dull, and then you keep throwing these things out, you little tinker. Did they identify whose sock it was? I presume you were too new at the time to grasp that it was such a blatant one. Too late for checkuser now I guess, need Durova's skills on that one.

Oh, he's still there. He even posted on this latest Roz Picard stuff. Search for his name in the talk page there. Filll thinks he's a great asset to the project.

[Jon Awbrey]

I haven't followed this whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has observed that an important influence in the background of this whole discussion is the adolescent view of science that comes out of Randroid Objectivism.

Here's a commentator who touches on it, however briefly:

Subjective Objectivity

Yesterday we went to see Jimmy Wales speak at the Nobel Peace Prize Center during the seminar “How Free is the Internet”. Jimbo was less controversial than his wikipedia page and his jokes were not funny. He repeated his mantra “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” He also declared again that he is an “objectivist”. It is interesting that he has missed the entire post-modern debate about objectivity, (is that really possible?) and that he and the other panel members spent most of the session criticizing the Great Chinese Firewall, Tibet and Iran, and hardly mentioned equally insidious American and British control tactics and legislative sleight of hand. Anyway, we all love Wikipedia.

http://alejandra-aeron.com/blog/2008/05/06...ve-objectivity/

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 3:00am

[Moulton]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.