When I initially became interested, discussion had already been going on long and passionately. The version current as of my first edit was:
21:36, 1 November 2005 William M. Connolley (rv to TL)
My first edit was intended to bring the entry back to a previous entry which seemed to me to be a more balanced base for discussion:
00:25, 2 November 2005 Purtilo (Bringing us back to neutral presentation)
Imagine my surprise when it only took 9 minutes for that material to be obliterated:
00:34, 2 November 2005 Pierremenard (bringing us back to the version that doesn't happily gloss over Lott's ethical problems)
Tried moving it back to see what would happen:
00:36, 2 November 2005 Purtilo (The ethical problem seems to be with gamesmanship on WP. Let's get real and use this version.)
Nope, that didn't survive at all either:
03:29, 2 November 2005 22.214.171.124 (rv. let's get real and use the other version.)
My above effort also earned me derision on my very own WP entry!
03:43, 2 November 2005 TimLambert
Which he then expanded to ...
06:22, 2 November 2005 TimLambert
A string of other edits and exchanges not involving me ensued. The next day I responded to the version:
17:50, 3 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv Timewarp and socks version back to WMC/TL/...)
And introduced this version (again instended to reflect balance):
14:59, 5 November 2005 Purtilo
Obliterated within the hour:
15:41, 5 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to WMC/TL/P/...)
20:27, 5 November 2005 126.96.36.199 (rv back, those distortions simply shouldn't be allowed)
20:55, 5 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to WMC/TL/P/....)
01:07, 6 November 2005 Purtilo
As long as I was trying to contribute to the Lott entry, I also removed the blather that was inappropriately entered about me on my entry:
01:09, 6 November 2005 Purtilo
These edits never survived long ...
06:43, 6 November 2005 Pierremenard (rv t WC)
They piled on in my entry too at the same time. It basically took only three attempts to make minor edits to the original Lott entry in order to be attacked, with the Lambert war machine grinding towards me:
07:09, 6 November 2005 Danny Yee (I definitely suspect this, it seems pretty damn obvious)
12:22, 6 November 2005 Purtilo
12:26, 6 November 2005 Purtilo
12:51, 6 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv unmarked revert by John Lott aka Purtilo)
14:16, 6 November 2005 TimLambert (rv deletion of the fact that Purtilo is suspected to be a sockpuppet)
20:08, 6 November 2005 188.8.131.52 (rv to Purtilo. Explain how the POV warning can be removed given this debate.)
20:20, 6 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to WMC/TL/P... this is about rather more than a POV header. But feel free to add just that if you want.)
04:05, 7 November 2005 184.108.40.206 ( ? Academic career )
15:00, 7 November 2005 Purtilo (Thanks for accepting the POV warning.)
16:09, 7 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to WMC/... POV header if you insist; the rest: no. PLease don't be silly)
A long string of other edits not mentioning or involving my text (which by this point had once again been trashed) ensued, then the next day I responded to the version:
07:20, 8 November 2005 Willmcw (rv all except POV tag - please dicuss major changes in contentious articles on the talk page)
It seemed that even if a balanced article body wasn't possible, then at least a disclaimer warning readers about controversial or disputed content would be in order:
21:05, 8 November 2005 Purtilo (Making progress by accepting POV warning, now how about the rest?)
Nope, didn't take long for that to go:
21:34, 8 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv John Lott aka Purtilo aka... and since you're being silly, take out the POV header too)
So much for even alerting researchers about the potential for disputed material. Another string of posts not involving me ensued, then to the version:
12:11, 12 November 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv anon unmarked revert back to Dannyyee)
I responded with ...
13:48, 12 November 2005 Purtilo (I'm not anon, I know name-calling is not a substitute for serious discourse, and I'd like to get back to the merits too.)
That got the same response: removal of my suggestions and more name calling.
15:27, 12 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv massive pro-Lott edits made by one of Lott's sock puppets)
19:40, 13 November 2005 Gordinier (I find it disheartening that critics of Lott's research resort to name-calling when open and honest academic debate is what's always best.)
20:04, 13 November 2005 Willmcw m (Reverted edits by Gordinier to last version by TimLambert)
22:41, 13 November 2005 Purtilo (rv to Gordinier)
Also noticed my entry needed cleaning up ...
23:11, 13 November 2005 Purtilo
Nope, Lambert needs the name calling ...
01:37, 14 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv deletion)
03:06, 14 November 2005 Serinity (Lambert, how are you so certain about this?)
06:49, 14 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv I'm certain that I suspect Purtilo is John Lott)
Another day or so flurry of edits not involving me followed, bringing us back to square one with:
01:20, 15 November 2005 Titoxd m (Reverted edits by 220.127.116.11 to last version by TimLambert)
... to which I attempted to get at least a POV tag in:
23:20, 15 November 2005 Purtilo (Patiently reverting to previously agreed to version.)
Didn't last ten minutes:
23:31, 15 November 2005 Willmcw m (Reverted edits by Purtilo to last version by Titoxd)
Oh, and I tried cleaning my entry up too ...
23:22, 15 November 2005 Purtilo
At least that lasted until start of business the next day.
08:39, 16 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv unmarked revert)
12:55, 16 November 2005 Purtilo (rv to restore disclaimer as previously agreed)
No warnings allowed, and more name calling:
14:26, 16 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv -- You didn't just restore the POV tag did you John?)
18:43, 16 November 2005 Gordinier (Guys, let's get back to the issues – stop the knee-jerk gate keeping and name calling!)
19:21, 16 November 2005 Hipocrite (yes, let's. You can start by discussing a single concrete change on the talk page.)
12:48, 17 November 2005 Purtilo (Patiently reverting to previously agreed to version.)
(Also trying to clean up my entry ...)
12:49, 17 November 2005 Purtilo
13:15, 17 November 2005 Danny Yee (revert Lott+puppets version to Rest of World)
And don't forget to zap my entry too ...
13:54, 17 November 2005 Hipocrite
23:39, 17 November 2005 HenryBowman (revert to version with disclaimer)
23:52, 17 November 2005 Willmcw m (Reverted edits by HenryBowman to last version by Dannyyee)
01:34, 18 November 2005 Danny Yee (revert massive changes to Rest of World version)
13:15, 18 November 2005 Purtilo
15:22, 18 November 2005 TimLambert (rv unmarked revert)
Another flurry of posts, then on to:
05:27, 18 November 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (rvv)
13:13, 18 November 2005 Purtilo (Restoring POV tag.)
13:48, 18 November 2005 Danny Yee (rv - deceitful labelling of massive changes as addition of a tag is kind of typical)
14:56, 18 November 2005 Purtilo (Still trying to restore POV tag)
15:01, 18 November 2005 Hipocrite (no ongoing dicussion on talk regarding tag. Please discuss your concerns on talk when returning tag.)
More attacks of me, presumably to keep me defensive on my entry rather than advocating balance in Lott's article:
18:05, 20 November 2005 Serinity (Lambert, seven posts that Purtilo is a sockpuppet! How can you be so certain?)
22:19, 20 November 2005 TimLambert (rv I suspect that Purtilo is Lott based on his editing pattern. I don't have to be certain.)
22:30, 20 November 2005 Who m (can't be a sockpuppet of a biography, change to text.)
More attempts to at least clean up my entry:
03:07, 22 November 2005 Purtilo
04:21, 22 November 2005 TimLambert m (rv)
And again ...
00:21, 27 November 2005 Purtilo
They weren't going to have any of that, thank you:
06:32, 27 November 2005 Danny Yee (rv)
23:38, 27 November 2005 Purtilo (This is not anonymous (nor Lott), thank you.)
Tim was careful not to forget to attack others of us out of the blue too, while other discussion was raging on the main Lott article:
05:42, 2 December 2005 TimLambert
Having no choice but to conclude that the whole concept of a Wikipedia process is flawed, I disengaged for a while to see if maybe this was just a transient thing. I watched, but refrained from involvement until about a month later, when I tried to first fix my own entry:
21:30, 11 December 2005 Purtilo
Then share what I thought was relevent material on the discussion page (not even the base article). The version to which I did an insert was :
03:16, 16 December 2005 Gzuckier m ( ? Change discussion )
Lambert was slipping by inadvertently leaving us unattacked in our own entries:
17:09, 20 December 2005 TimLambert
20:55, 20 December 2005 Purtilo
My addition to the discussion section
21:19, 20 December 2005 Purtilo ( ? Lambert's Got His Own Sockpuppet Controversy )
... was to point out the hypocrisy of some of those indulging in this wanton censorship of scholarly exchanges: "Lambert's behavior as above is entertaining at some level: When I tried to get involved in the 'wikipedia way', every one of my edits was knee-jerk blasted over by Lambert, with an immediate assertion that I am some sort of "sock puppet" for Lott. (Feel free to check the history of Purtilo for details.) While normally I would appreciate being confused for someone of Lott's caliber, I consider it defamation for someone to assert that as a professor at this university don't perform my own research before speaking for myself. And now to find out that Lambert is the one playing this game of which he falsely accuses others? Now that's rich! -- Purtilo - December 20, 2005 4:20 p.m. EDST USA"
But you'd never know I wrote this if all you read was the discussion page under Lott. Five minutes later my material was blasted over by ....
22:24, 20 December 2005 William M. Connolley ( ? Lambert's Got His Own Sockpuppet Controversy - rm entire section: nothing to do with the article)
And of course the obligatory attack on my entry ...
01:06, 21 December 2005 TimLambert
21:02, 21 December 2005 18.104.22.168
Oh well. So much for trying to contribute there too. And what was an edit on Lott if not running all the trap lines to deface entries for the rest of us too.
01:53, 23 December 2005 22.214.171.124
So maybe some humor would work?
02:52, 23 December 2005 Purtilo
Naw, they don't like that either:
22:41, 27 December 2005 126.96.36.199 (revert to TimLambert version)
Coming back in January, I thought I'd first try to see if I could at least keep my own entry clean:
04:22, 10 January 2006 Purtilo
That lasted a whopping two weeks, so I tried making a small change to the main article (still much the same as months earlier):
15:24, 24 January 2006 Hipocrite (changing tag)
That was the base to which I started the edit, and here is where I tried to give some history.
00:16, 25 January 2006 Purtilo (Clarifying history of unwarranted attacks.)
00:26, 25 January 2006 Hipocrite (rvv remove tag.)
Nope, no record of my material was preserved for more than 10 minutes.
01:25, 25 January 2006 Pierremenard (rv to Danny Yee. see talk page for innumerable discussions of the flaws of this version)
02:15, 25 January 2006 Purtilo
02:16, 25 January 2006 Pierremenard (rv from biased version)
More less-filling-tastes-great disputes by others, bringing us to the version ...
12:13, 25 January 2006 Hipocrite (rv to can't sleep)
To which I made one last attempt at getting material in:
12:41, 25 January 2006 Purtilo
A record! That lasted 23 minutes!
13:04, 25 January 2006 Hipocrite (rv to hipocrite)
Okay, gave that one another month, and came back to this version of the discussion page:
00:23, 17 February 2006 Tawker m (Reverted edits by 188.8.131.52 to last version by Banes)
00:51, 17 February 2006 Purtilo
15:50, 17 February 2006 Pierremenard (indent purtilo's comment. also, please sign your comment with four tildes in addition to your name.)
15:57, 17 February 2006 Pierremenard (huh?)
Zap. Oh well.