Let's check in on the reformed Cirt Options

[carbuncle]

Remember when Cirt said:

accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology. I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly. To begin towards that process, I have gone ahead and removed 66 Scientology-related BLP pages from my watchlist. I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

and

Comment: As stated here diff, I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was weeks ago, and in a different calendar year, so I guess it would be unreasonable of me to hold Cirt to those statements. What has Cirt been up to in the first few days of 2011?

• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Jenna Miscavige Hill
• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Exscientologykids.com
• thanking someone for their work on an L Ron Hubbard book article
• thanking someone for their work on an anti-CoS activist Jenna Miscavige Hill article
• editing a Futurama episode dealing with "Robotology"
• editing the BLP of an actor who did a spoof of Cirt's arch-enemy Tom Cruise
• welcoming someone whose only recent edit (out of a total of two) is a supportive comment for Jenna Miscavige Hill on the talk page of their article
• continuing a conversation on the talk page of an article about a former Scientologist who committed suicide years after leaving Scientology
• supporting the renaming of a page about a Scientology-related medical clinic

Just about the only thing that Cirt did that isn't related to CoS is restoring a removed quote from a movie financed by the Moonies. I'm sure there is nothing wrong with having a highly negative review snippet in its own coloured box:

"Empty-headed Korean war epic produced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church."
—Leonard Maltin[2]

I mean, that's pretty neutral, right? I'm going to add something similar to the Sound of Music and see what kind of reception I get.

Cirt's statements about staying away from CoS stuff seemed to work in that people backed off the ARBSCI enforcement, but if Cirt can't keep away from it by themselves, it may be time for an intervention.

[Silver seren]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch. In the actor's article, his edit had nothing to do with the spoof, but was on an entirely separate part of the article. Welcoming someone is not editing Scientology articles.

Save the first two and the last two, but get rid of the rest, they don't help your argument at all.

As for the Inchon film, the movie was almost completely panned by critics and it is common practice to put a single quote from a critic that generally sums up the rest of the critics' feelings about the film in a box like that, which it does. There's nothing wrong with that edit.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[carbuncle]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch. In the actor's article, his edit had nothing to do with the spoof, but was on an entirely separate part of the article. Welcoming someone is not editing Scientology articles.

Save the first two and the last two, but get rid of the rest, they don't help your argument at all.

As for the Inchon film, the movie was almost completely panned by critics and it is common practice to put a single quote from a critic that generally sums up the rest of the critics' feelings about the film in a box like that, which it does. There's nothing wrong with that edit.

I didn't cherry-pick these edits - they make up most of what Cirt has done since returning from a short wikibreak. Cirt didn't edit these articles at random. Even if the edits he made are not directly related to Scientology, that is the reason Cirt was watching them. You don't think thanking people for editing CoS-related articles is at odds with saying "I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general"?

[taiwopanfob]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Cirt says (s)he will "shift focus" away from Scientology. Well, it doesn't appear to have happened. All of the links carbuncle provides is evidence for a "lack of shift". Rather than editing articles on mollusks or something, Cirt is in fact hanging around the Scientology related ones.

It's like a known bank robber hanging around outside a bank; the manager of the bank would be negligent in his duties if he ignored the behavior.

[lilburne]

You missed a couple it helps if one can poison the ground. However, at least one of the CU clerks has caught on to the ruse.

[thekohser]

Rather than editing articles on mollusks or something, Cirt is in fact hanging around the Scientology related ones.

Best sentence of 2011, thus far!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[wikieyeay]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch.

Given that the episode is a parody of Scientology, is included in the Scientology Portal, etc., it doesn't seem much of a stretch at all.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kudos to Carbuncle for the amusing thread title.

[Infomercial]

What has Cirt been up to in the first few days of 2011?

• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Jenna Miscavige Hill
• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Exscientologykids.com
• thanking someone for their work on an L Ron Hubbard book article
• thanking someone for their work on an anti-CoS activist Jenna Miscavige Hill article
• editing a Futurama episode dealing with "Robotology"
• editing the BLP of an actor who did a spoof of Cirt's arch-enemy Tom Cruise
• welcoming someone whose only recent edit (out of a total of two) is a supportive comment for Jenna Miscavige Hill on the talk page of their article
• continuing a conversation on the talk page of an article about a former Scientologist who committed suicide years after leaving Scientology
• supporting the renaming of a page about a Scientology-related medical clinic

Cirt's statements about staying away from CoS stuff seemed to work in that people backed off the ARBSCI enforcement, but if Cirt can't keep away from it by themselves, it may be time for an intervention.

I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly.

This man is either a liar or extremely insecure. If both is true, he probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place.

Or does he...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-p...41/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-p...41/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that Scott is fingered on whyweprotest as an agent of Scientology's OSA.

Cirt has better press on that forum. Harking back to the affair about the puff pieces for Jeff Stone's opponents in that Riverside County election described here, Kenneth Dickson (T-H-L-K-D) and Joel Anderson (T-H-L-K-D), the same lady comments that she

helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

[RMHED]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

[Lar]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Channeling WMC again?

[RMHED]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Channeling WMC again?

That man-made global warming twat?

Now that's just offensive Lar!

[Somey]

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Well, I thought he showed admirable initiative by registering on the Why We Protest forum to try to explain his actions WRT the Jenna Miscavige article.

Somehow these Anonymous folks, who clearly have their hearts in the right place, have to try to understand that Wikipedia is the real problem here - it's just too easy to abuse if people aren't paying attention, and what people of conscience hope to prevent here is neither the smearing nor the "sanitization" of Scientology itself, it's the use of what has come to be an Acceptable WP Smear Tactic on people who don't warrant it.

It's similar to what Nobs used to call "ideological profiling" - if certain less-than-ethical WP'ers discover that they can bash people with the "Scientologist" label, just as they've bashed people with various other labels in the past, they're almost certainly going to use it on people who have precious little to do with Scientology, if anything.

If you're going to bring down something like Scientology, you need patience, you need creativity, and you need a damn good plan. What you don't need is people sniping at innocents.

[carbuncle]

[removing my overly long criticism of Anonymous because I don't want to derail my own thread. It's about Cirt.]

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Jagärdu]

[removing my overly long criticism of Anonymous because I don't want to derail my own thread. It's about Cirt.]

Good thing because I noticed there were 2 guests and 1 Anonymous user reading the thread ...

I find little of this surprising, and I hope someone at the very least sets Cirt straight.

[carbuncle]

Cirt doesn't appear to be enjoying the attention this thread may have garnered and is on another short wikibreak. On Wikipedia, that is. On Wikimedia Commons, Cirt has been active. They are attempting to have a number of images deleted. Yes, images related to Scientology. You know, that subject form which they were distancing themselves?

I'll quote the reason for deletion and you see if you can figure out what it means:

File:L._Ron_Hubbard_conducting_Dianetics_seminar_in_Los_Angeles_in_1950.jpg
The link provided fails to show that this publication, Los Angeles Daily News appears on this list. It does not. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the newspaper of origin may be misidentified (Los Angeles Daily News instead of Los Angeles Times), but what is "the list"?

[taiwopanfob]

I think the newspaper of origin may be misidentified (Los Angeles Daily News instead of Los Angeles Times), but what is "the list"?

Quick research: we have a Los Angeles Daily News (historic) and a Los Angeles Daily News. The latter is still in business, but the former folded in 1954, and merged with Los Angeles Mirror. This last link is to the current Los Angeles Times, which may explain some of the source stuff at:

http://unitproj.library.ucla.edu/dlib/lat/...ubjectID=222501

Whatever this all may explain, it certainly isn't "the list"...

[HRIP7]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch.

Given that the episode is a parody of Scientology, is included in the Scientology Portal, etc., it doesn't seem much of a stretch at all.

Karppinen (T-C-L-K-R-D) recently introduced some early black-and-white pictures of Hubbard's 1950s' Dianetics seminars in a few WP articles. Cirt began the New Year by nominating all of them for deletion in Commons.

Actually, I tell a lie. Cirt's first Commons action in the New Year was to vote keep on this image.

[carbuncle]

I think the newspaper of origin may be misidentified (Los Angeles Daily News instead of Los Angeles Times), but what is "the list"?

Quick research: we have a Los Angeles Daily News (historic) and a Los Angeles Daily News. The latter is still in business, but the former folded in 1954, and merged with Los Angeles Mirror. This last link is to the current Los Angeles Times, which may explain some of the source stuff at:

http://unitproj.library.ucla.edu/dlib/lat/...ubjectID=222501

Whatever this all may explain, it certainly isn't "the list"...

A mysterious stranger has helpfully cleared up the "list" confusion:

Okay, I'm going to guess that Cirt is tallking about this list of non-renewed copyrights. The reason it would not, and (I presume) the reason in would be found in the archives of the Los Angeles Times, is because this is not the same as today's Los Angeles Daily News. The old Los Angeles Daily News was merged with the Times in 1954.24.18.132.13 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Karppinen (T-C-L-K-R-D) recently introduced some early black-and-white pictures of Hubbard's 1950s' Dianetics seminars in a few WP articles. Cirt began the New Year by nominating all of them for deletion in Commons.

Actually, I tell a lie. Cirt's first Commons action in the New Year was to vote keep on this image.

I would guess Karppinen is representing the Church of Scientology in this epic battle between good and evil online spat.

[Beer me]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

[Jagärdu]

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

Go figure. Anyone who belongs to a group that might be considered a "cult" by anti-cultists would be concerned about Cirt. Of course anyone interested in neutrality would also be so concerned. At the end of the day, the organizations Cirt has focussed most of his attention on are run by scam artists who have probably ripped off many a lost soul. However, in battling these organizations Cirt has been wreaking havoc on the encyclopedia. At the end of the day the Wiki is worse off for it.

[tarantino]

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

Go figure. Anyone who belongs to a group that might be considered a "cult" by anti-cultists would be concerned about Cirt. Of course anyone interested in neutrality would also be so concerned. At the end of the day, the organizations Cirt has focussed most of his attention on are run by scam artists who have probably ripped off many a lost soul. However, in battling these organizations Cirt has been wreaking havoc on the encyclopedia. At the end of the day the Wiki is worse off for it.

Resident Anthropologist used to be known as Weaponbb7, before the JIDF allegedly took over his wp account. He's one of those kids with Asperger's who spend way too much time on wp.

Here he explains his interest in the Twelve Tribes.

[NuclearWarfare]

.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Beer me]

&num

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

Go figure. Anyone who belongs to a group that might be considered a "cult" by anti-cultists would be concerned about Cirt. Of course anyone interested in neutrality would also be so concerned. At the end of the day, the organizations Cirt has focussed most of his attention on are run by scam artists who have probably ripped off many a lost soul. However, in battling these organizations Cirt has been wreaking havoc on the encyclopedia. At the end of the day the Wiki is worse off for it.

Resident Anthropologist used to be known as Weaponbb7, before the JIDF allegedly took over his wp account. He's one of those kids with Asperger's who spend way too much time on wp.

Here he explains his interest in the Twelve Tribes.

huh... You know its kinda depressing to see the face behind the account. I thought looking through his contributions I had found the next cult pov pusher member to be banned from wp. Its just some aspie kid...

[EricBarbour]

I thought looking through his contributions I had found the next cult pov pusher member to be banned from wp. Its just some aspie kid...

Finally getting it, yes?

That's the central point.
Wikipedia's culture is so screwed, it makes flaky college kids look like "experts".
Not because they contribute quality--because they play the game obsessively.

[rebelrouser]

On the hunger project Smee welcomes a user that hadn't edited for two years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drzeus

Drzeus. Five edits in 2004 to add the alleged Werner Erhard connection to the HungerProject, two years later it has been removed and Smee adds a section about the alleged connection to werner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=54350368

and then welcomes the two year old contributor that has not edited since 2004, what is that about?

She also adds a couple of links to

http://www.carolgiambalvo.com/index.html

Carol Giambalvo’s interest in cults and thought reform began in 1978 when her step-daughter began exhibiting a drastic personality change following becoming a devotee in ISKCON. She began researching cults and thought reform and lectured in local high schools, churches and civic organizations. The more information she gathered on the indoctrination processes and thought reform used in cults, the more concerns arose about her involvement in est and The Hunger Project. In 1983, she and her husband, Noel, left their associations with est, The Hunger Project and Sterling Institute and began a personal search for information to aid their recovery process.

Smee welcomes Affcarol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Affcarol

Affcarol makes only COI contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Affcarol

This post has been edited by rebelrouser:

[Cedric]

On the hunger project Smee welcomes a user that hadn't edited for two years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drzeus

Drzeus. Five edits in 2004 to add the alleged Werner Erhard connection to the HungerProject, two years later it has been removed and Smee adds a section about the alleged connection to werner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=54350368

and then welcomes the two year old contributor that has not edited since 2004, what is that about?
[snip]

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, rebelrouser.

Admittedly, what you point out here is rather weird, but then, Wikipedia and weird just naturally go together. Indeed, I can top this. About two months ago, I accidentally happened upon my old user talk page when I intended to access another page. There I found a message that had been left for me a few months earlier. The thing was, I hadn't edited WP since March 2007, over three years earlier. I don't believe that I had logged in for at least three years, either.

It could be nothing more than inattention, or perhaps some "wikipedians" actually believe WP is like the Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[rebelrouser]

On the hunger project Smee welcomes a user that hadn't edited for two years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drzeus

Drzeus. Five edits in 2004 to add the alleged Werner Erhard connection to the HungerProject, two years later it has been removed and Smee adds a section about the alleged connection to werner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=54350368

and then welcomes the two year old contributor that has not edited since 2004, what is that about?
[snip]

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, rebelrouser.

Admittedly, what you point out here is rather weird, but then, Wikipedia and weird just naturally go together. Indeed, I can top this. About two months ago, I accidentally happened upon my old user talk page when I intended to access another page. There I found a message that had been left for me a few months earlier. The thing was, I hadn't edited WP since March 2007, over three years earlier. I don't believe that I had logged in for at least three years, either.

It could be nothing more than inattention, or perhaps some "wikipedians" actually believe WP is like the Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

June 2006 Smee wrote this all about Carol

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=59407142

the confusion about Smee is a man or a woman and about lengthy edit sessions is self explained , as she says, "she and her husband, Noel, left their associations with est, The Hunger Project and Sterling Institute and began a personal search for information to aid their recovery process" A husband and wife editing team.

Sterling Institute of Relationship. written by Smee http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Carol Giambalvo

http://www.carolgiambalvo.com/index.html

won the Margaret Singer award

Margaret singer page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Singer

written by Smee

This post has been edited by rebelrouser:

[carbuncle]

This passage in the WP article International Cultic Studies Association made me laugh:

Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., Executive Director of the ICSA, states that "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group’s leader, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community...Although many cult members eventually walk out on their own, many, if not most, who leave cults on their own are psychologically harmed, often in ways they do not understand. Some cult members never leave, and some of these are severely harmed. There is no way to predict who will leave, who won’t leave, or who will be harmed."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This passage in the WP article International Cultic Studies Association made me laugh:

Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., Executive Director of the ICSA, states that "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group’s leader, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community...Although many cult members eventually walk out on their own, many, if not most, who leave cults on their own are psychologically harmed, often in ways they do not understand. Some cult members never leave, and some of these are severely harmed. There is no way to predict who will leave, who won’t leave, or who will be harmed."

As is typically the case, the statement would apply with equal validity to every major religion and political movement.

[Kelly Martin]

Affcarol makes only COI contributions

You know, I get so sick and tired of Wikipedians coming here and using their idiosyncratic and inane jargon as if it had real meaning. What the fuck are "COI contributions"? Are you really alleging that every last one of this editor's edits exhibits a "conflict of interest"? More generally, what the fuck does a Wikipedian mean when they say "COI contribution"? Surely they're not talking about fish.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Cirt says (s)he will "shift focus" away from Scientology. Well, it doesn't appear to have happened. All of the links carbuncle provides is evidence for a "lack of shift". Rather than editing articles on mollusks or something, Cirt is in fact hanging around the Scientology related ones.

It's like a known bank robber hanging around outside a bank; the manager of the bank would be negligent in his duties if he ignored the behavior.

It is not out of the question that Cirt might win this year's WP:DICK of Distinction award. Under the circumstances, can anyone offer credible evidence as to Cirt's gender, or can anyone offer evidence to support the rumor that Cirt is more than one person? IMWTK.

[Somey]

the confusion about Smee is a man or a woman and about lengthy edit sessions is self explained , as she says, "she and her husband, Noel, left their associations with est, The Hunger Project and Sterling Institute and began a personal search for information to aid their recovery process" A husband and wife editing team.

You're saying that Cirt is Noel Giambalvo, or rather both Noel and Carol Giambalvo...? I don't think so. Cirt might be highly familiar with the Giambalvos or even know them personally, but the Giambalvos themselves just don't fit the profile. For one thing, they would realize after a few weeks of Wikipedia activity that they were becoming part of a cult themselves, and get the hell out! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Anyway, interesting speculation, and I hope you don't take my dismissal of it personally. There just has to be another explanation, though like I say you may very well be on the right track (FWIW).

[Jagärdu]

the confusion about Smee is a man or a woman and about lengthy edit sessions is self explained , as she says, "she and her husband, Noel, left their associations with est, The Hunger Project and Sterling Institute and began a personal search for information to aid their recovery process" A husband and wife editing team.

You're saying that Cirt is Noel Giambalvo, or rather both Noel and Carol Giambalvo...? I don't think so. Cirt might be highly familiar with the Giambalvos or even know them personally, but the Giambalvos themselves just don't fit the profile. For one thing, they would realize after a few weeks of Wikipedia activity that they were becoming part of a cult themselves, and get the hell out! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Anyway, interesting speculation, and I hope you don't take my dismissal of it personally. There just has to be another explanation, though like I say you may very well be on the right track (FWIW).

This is most likely Carol Giambalvo on Wikipedia. Interestingly, Cirt (as Smee) is the only editor to have edited her user page - here. There is definitely a familiarity there that extends beyond the Wiki.

Here's another interesting coincidence. Another anti-cult editor who was quite active in the Smee era, User:Tanaats, also edited the Giambalvo page. For instance here Tanaats picks up just minutes after Smee left off. What is more interesting is that Tanaats seems to have been quite active, until just a couple of months prior to the Smee/Cirt changeover, when he just disappeared into thin air - edit history. Is it possible that Cirt is both Taanats and Smee? Look at Taanats editing style. Anyone recognize the high volume of minor edits and vandalism reversions that the reformed Smee (aka Cirt) was known for the year before being made an admin? A comparison between Smee/Taanats (in combination) and Cirt might yield some insight. If, and its a big if, this idle speculation is correct it might not be a stretch to think that the new Cirt is a tag team, perhaps even of people *like* Carol and her husband.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Kelly Martin]

Cirt/Smee being a pseudonym shared by several different people over the years would be consistent with the slight variances in apparent personality and style (not to mention gender) that has been exhibited over the years. Certainly wouldn't be the first case of a cult or cult-like entity using a shared account used by like-minded people for forwarding their shared point of view.

[carbuncle]

As much as Cirt's overt anti-Scientology POV-pushing galls me, I'm not sure that outing them is a great idea if those stories about the CoS harassing their enemies are to be believed.

[tarantino]

Here's another interesting coincidence. Another anti-cult editor who was quite active in the Smee era, User:Tanaats, also edited the Giambalvo page. For instance here Tanaats picks up just minutes after Smee left off. What is more interesting is that Tanaats seems to have been quite active, until just a couple of months prior to the Smee/Cirt changeover, when he just disappeared into thin air - edit history. Is it possible that Cirt is both Taanats and Smee? Look at Taanats editing style. Anyone recognize the high volume of minor edits and vandalism reversions that the reformed Smee (aka Cirt) was known for the year before being made an admin? A comparison between Smee/Taanats (in combination) and Cirt might yield some insight. If, and its a big if, this idle speculation is correct it might not be a stretch to think that the new Cirt is a tag team, perhaps even of people *like* Carol and her husband.

This is Tanaats. He's in California. All the IPs that Cirt has let slip are far away from there. They could have met on the Rick Ross forums where both were active at the same time.