A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458

I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use.

So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.