And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case Options

[-DS-]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

[Beer me]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

Come to the party, stay for the Arbitration....

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I want to see his response to the charge that he pleads family/health problems when put under scrutiny. Will he simply reprise that excuse?

[Milton Roe]

I want to see his response to the charge that he pleads family/health problems when put under scrutiny. Will he simply reprise that excuse?

How embarassing if so. They accuse you of malingering and you answer that you can't fully defend against the charges, due to health problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Bummer.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I want to see his response to the charge that he pleads family/health problems when put under scrutiny. Will he simply reprise that excuse?

How embarassing if so. They accuse you of malingering and you answer that you can't fully defend against the charges, due to health problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Bummer.

Would it not at least be consistent?

[EricBarbour]

FT2 went and got Baxter fired from his job. And FT2 is still an admin.

If the ArBlubberers don't deal with Cirt directly, no one will be able to deny they are corrupt and favoritist toward their wiki-pals.....

[EricBarbour]

As expected, out come the trolls:

Outside view by Gamaliel

Some thoughts on the allegations above:

The promotional tone of particular articles. Is this a problem that Cirt should address? Certainly. It is a very common problem. I've seen it many, many times in student papers I've graded. People are inundated with advertising and promotional copy and their writing sometimes unconsciously reflects that, especially if the source material they are working with is promotional as well. I fail to see how this is "evidence" of "loyalty to outside causes", however. The examples of politicians cited include both Democrats and Republicans. What cause is Cirt supposed to be promoting here? Bipartisanship? Or are we alleging that he is a paid editor for hire?
Creation of non-notable articles to promote anti-Scientology. If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?
Editing and expansion of articles related to Dan Savage. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Why is this even an issue?
Too many DYK submissions on the same topic. I think this is a problem to address with the DYK rules, not a problem with anything Cirt did. People are going to produce/expand multiple articles on similar topics because that's what they're interested in and that's what they've researched. DYK recently featured multiple articles by me on female mathematicians and Yale graduates. Am I now an "activist" for those topics?
Inappropriate sources. Many sources are mentioned above as if they are so obviously inappropriate that it is mindboggling. For example, a self-published YouTube clip from Aaron Saxton is cited as inappropriate. But what's wrong with that? He's talking about himself and his views. It's long been established that self-published sources by people are acceptable in that context. If you don't like it, campaign to change the policy.
Manipulation of sources. Cirt wrote in Everything Tastes Better with Bacon "Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004". But his accusers counter: "The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two." Are you fucking kidding me? You should send me a check for the time I wasted reading that.

If you want to address whatever issues you have with Cirt's editing, I support that. But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence. Whatever happened to AGF? Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives? Every day there's some ankle biter trying to accuse me of this motive or that agenda because I made an edit he didn't like. It's frustrating to see established editors doing the same to an editor who overall does quality work. There's plenty of political ideologues who openly push a political agenda here on Wikipedia and edit nothing but political articles. I don't see evidence here that Cirt is one of them, and it seems that we're trying to punish him with nothing but a bunch of imagined connections and circumstantial evidence while leaving flagrant offenders unmolested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that the creator of this RFCU has been heavily criticised for "Wikihounding" Cirt [56] does not fill me with confidence, either. This strikes me as just more of the same. As a side note, is it appropriate to post notices about this RfC/U to numerous user talk pages? [57] Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If this isn't pointy behavior, I don't know what is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree per my statement above. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

[powercorrupts]

I don't think that will save his bacon. Several recipes? I'm surprised Malleus didn't recommend "many". It's all porky pies.

[RMHED]

I don't think that will save his bacon. Several recipes? I'm surprised Malleus didn't recommend "many". It's all porky pies.

"Everything Tastes Better with Bacon" this Cirt chap is clearly pushing an anti-semitism agenda. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[powercorrupts]

FT2 went and got Baxter fired from his job. And FT2 is still an admin.

If the ArBlubberers don't deal with Cirt directly, no one will be able to deny they are corrupt and favoritist toward their wiki-pals.....

Was Baxter using office hours on Wikipedia btw? I can see the 'Wikipedia is not that important/wife and kids' argument, but that guy is really fucked up. After all the "Michael" bollocks I received here he sent me a bunch of emails as one of the ('unjustly') banned accounts (ie not really Poetlister and in no way the innocent Baxter), and ended up sending me a picture of some student-looking girl as proof when I said I can't really go for it. The thing is I was being polite - I kept up a sceptical/open contact and after a point he simply stumbled all over himself, and came across like he's been emailing a few people and losing track. But the picture (who could be a young mate of his for all I know) really was out of order as far as I'm concerned, as is trying to deceive people and take hold of their time.

It's interesting to me how different people seem to see him here - some still call him Poetlister and bring up his 'good side', while others see him more as an insidious perv. The question I suppose is, how important in real world terms are these people on Wikipedia? They may be full of themselves for sure, but do they have a position of responsibility within a global society? ie in a truly culpable sense, if it not a strictly legal one? In my experience admin/arbs play down Wikipedia's and their own 'real world' importance most days of the year until fundraising comes along. Personally I see them all as prospective employees of Jimbo's empire, so it's never a small deal to me. Look at Cirt here - he's clearly been profiting from creating supposedly neutral content. Does he pay tax if money is involved? (Come to think of it - does Kohs? He could argue that employee and financially-rich Wikimedia are persistently preventing him from earning his buck).

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cirt seems to be taking his sweet time about responding. Is he waiting to see how the other views stack up, in order to decide on a strategy? Or is he allowing the suspense to build, in order to milk the drahma?

[Milton Roe]

Cirt seems to be taking his sweet time about responding. Is he waiting to see how the other views stack up, in order to decide on a strategy? Or is he allowing the suspense to build, in order to milk the drahma?

He's busy trying to get his ventilator weaning parameters in range in the ICU, so he can be extubated. Then off pressors, which are all that is between him and circulatory shock. When he gets stable and back to a normal hospital floor room, he'll recover from the delirium and ask for a laptop with WiFi, and then we're off. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The outside commenters sound like they're afraid that a precedent will be set that says you can't game the system to push POV.

[pietkuip]

Requests for comment/Cirt

"Desired outcome" is very tame. Is Cirt still an admin? (His/her userpage does not have an admin box, it only has him/her in the administrator category.) Or are his admin actions all non-controversial maintenance?

This post has been edited by pietkuip:

[carbuncle]

Requests for comment/Cirt

"Desired outcome" is very tame. Is Cirt still an admin? (His/her userpage does not have an admin box, it only has him/her in the administrator category.) Or are his admin actions all non-controversial maintenance?

As much as I have an issue with Cirt's POV-pushing, their admin activities have never seemed to be a problem.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Griswaldo seems like a cool guy.

[Gruntled]

Is Cirt still an admin?

He sure is - for the present.

Or are his admin actions all non-controversial maintenance?

Maybe we can have a poll on that, though I suspect I know the answer already.

[EricBarbour]

Cirt has done both--good work, and evil work. And it shows how weak and divided the "community" is, when there's such a major split in the opinions of "involved persons". There is just no excuse for this.

Someone needs to walk in and remove Cirt's mop, by force. No one will do it, Arbcom obviously doesn't have the balls (and forget Jimbo). I predict that such schisms will only worsen with time, and will eventually tear the whole thing to bits.......Wikipedia is like the medieval Catholic Church. One schism after another.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cirt seems to have adopted the "So what?" tactic in his response.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

An interesting observation by Macwhiz:

On the other hand, we have SV, who proposed the failed RFC for the santorum article, reducing the article to less than a quarter of its previous size in just one edit, made after the proposed sweeping change was approved by a consensus of three out of the 138+ editors viewing the page in the previous month. The RfC/U refers to that as "Following Cirt's departure from the article, it is now, after community-based editing, back from over 5,000 to under 1,500 words." It was not community-based. It was a fait accompli by SV. Whether or not SV's draft improved the article is not the point for this discussion; the point is that if Cirt had done what SV did, I have no doubt it would be listed in this RfC/U as further evidence of his inappropriate editing. I dislike such double standards.

I think that this is a highly valid criticism. I think that part of Slim's method is to stake out a position in some controversy that wins initial support, and then arrogate to herself the authority to make sweeping edits without any consensus whatsoever. She has cultivated enough allies by scratching their backs at the appropriate moments that she will generally have someone running interference for her, should her tactics be discussed.

[HRIP7]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

While there is the expected flood of knee-jerk support for Cirt (after all, anyone who's against Scientology and Santorum can't be bad, can they?), DGG (T-C-L-K-R-D) has described Cirt's articles as "outrageusly promotional". He's suggested that Cirt's OTRS access should be withdrawn, and that if Cirt were not an admin, which automatically includes autopatrolled, he would be in favour of withdrawing autopatrolled status as well.

Featured article director Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges".

[Cla68]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

While there is the expected flood of knee-jerk support for Cirt (after all, anyone who's against Scientology and Santorum can't be bad, can they?), DGG (T-C-L-K-R-D) has described Cirt's articles as "outrageusly promotional". He's suggested that Cirt's OTRS access should be withdrawn, and that if Cirt were not an admin, which automatically includes autopatrolled, he would be in favour of withdrawing autopatrolled status as well.

Featured article director Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges".

One thing I find interesting about the RfC is that although it has received almost 3,000 views in its first four days, only about 35 people have actually commented or participated. Those 35 people should only account for a few hundred of those views. So, a lot of people have looked at it but have chosen not to give an opinion either way.

[lilburne]

One thing I find interesting about the RfC is that although it has received almost 3,000 views in its first four days, only about 35 people have actually commented or participated. Those 35 people should only account for a few hundred of those views. So, a lot of people have looked at it but have chosen not to give an opinion either way.

Well as Cirt blocked this linked account, and tried to get the non linked account banned for being the boggieman, weighing in with my pair of hobnail boots might be considered a little indelicate, especially as they have a poorly houseplant to care for.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Featured article director Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges".

Now that you bring it up, I can't understand why this idiot has never made WP:DICK of Distinction.

[lilburne]

Featured article director Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges".

Now that you bring it up, I can't understand why this idiot has never made WP:DICK of Distinction.

Might win a Micronecta scholtzi award though.

[HRIP7]

One thing I find interesting about the RfC is that although it has received almost 3,000 views in its first four days, only about 35 people have actually commented or participated. Those 35 people should only account for a few hundred of those views. So, a lot of people have looked at it but have chosen not to give an opinion either way.

Well as Cirt blocked this linked account, and tried to get the non linked account banned for being the boggieman, weighing in with my pair of hobnail boots might be considered a little indelicate, especially as they have a poorly houseplant to care for.

What, you got your houseplants planted in your hobnail boots?

[Abd]

From the RfC talk:

I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify. Raul654 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. When one sets out to lie, it's effective to make, first, at least two true statements, or at least two statements that will be seen as true, to get people's heads nodding "yes." Then you slip in the lie.

Raul654 made similar charges about me during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. I asked him to substantiate them. He declined, and nobody else asked.

They know him. That Wikipedia allows liars to keep administrative privileges is one of the most blatant flaws in the structure. It's done because of their "history of service," but missed in this is that the "service" often included creating legions of blocked and banned editors through their own blatantly outrageous behavior, that was long unrestrained and even applauded.

If we were to consider the editing *lost* through these actions, it could be vast compared with the service of the administrator.

Hey, Raul was *crucial*, I tell you, in defending Wikipedia against Scibaby. However, Raul *created* that prolific puppet master by clear abuse of Scibaby. Thus he made himself necessary, and, really, too bad if huge swaths of the internet were range-blocked as part of his efforts. Can't allow edits about cow farts, can we?

Yet routine vandalism, far worse, doesn't result in page protection, unless the level rises to a point where it cannot be managed through ordinary editing, and isolated blocking when persistent from an IP or account.

No, the crime is lese majeste. Raul was the King, and anyone who defied him was clearly, ipso facto, a heinous criminal.

This is the house that Jimmy built. I don't think it was his intention, but it's what happened. Eventually, what Raul was up to became so obvious that, as the ArbComm Letters mention, he was nudged to resign advanced privileges. But nothing was done about the accumulated damage.

By the way, as to responsibility for filing deceptive RfCs, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I assisted in getting that certified, purely as a process matter, then I actually read the thing and was horrified. This is partly what set me up to be seen as an opponent of the cabal. Some of the evidence I presented in that RfC was expanded by pages in user space, recently deleted by MfD filed by JzG..... That RfC was jointly filed by WMC and Raul654, and was a hit piece that described revert wars as if they were unilaterally caused by GoRight, when what was really going on was tag-team ownership of the articles in question.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[HRIP7]

On behalf of nothing in particular ...

[Beer me]

On behalf of nothing in particular ...

8hGvQtumNAY

heh, scientologist alert in above clip...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

[-DS-]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

Some idiots really need to be reminded that 2007 is over.

(BTW, Will, since you're reading my posts anyway, the above is directed at you)

EDIT: Curses!

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[thekohser]

Somebody remind me -- is "Will Beback" a real person? If so, what's his name, where does he live, and what does he do to pay for his rent? I have a hard time imagining someone so idiotic actually functioning well in the real world.

[-DS-]

Somebody remind me -- is "Will Beback" a real person? If so, what's his name, where does he live, and what does he do to pay for his rent? I have a hard time imagining someone so idiotic actually functioning well in the real world.

Hivemind can answer most of those questions.

[thekohser]

Somebody remind me -- is "Will Beback" a real person? If so, what's his name, where does he live, and what does he do to pay for his rent? I have a hard time imagining someone so idiotic actually functioning well in the real world.

Hivemind can answer most of those questions.

Oh, I get it. He lives in a $170,000 shack in the hills, purchased from his trust fund that his dad left him, giving him ample time for subsistence living, ham radio, and Wikipedia. Or, at least that's how it appears to me after 2 minutes of research.

When faced with zealots like that, it's no wonder people who actually have a job and a life to manage find Wikipedia so impossible.

[Abd]

The comment on the RfC talk page by Will Beback

It is lost on Will Beback that there might be a difference between chatter in a local bar, and comments in a decision-making process for an encyclopedia.

In pursuit of my agenda to make every thread be about myself, I present:

You're right that many of the accounts are "faceless", in that we don't know which, if any, accounts on WP they're connected to.

However we do know in some cases. Jayen466 here has identified as being HRIP7 there. I believe that Cla68 there is the same persona as Cla68 here. I also assume that ABD, Herschelkrustofsky, et al., are also the same people as their WP accounts. I don't think I'm deluded when I say that many people on WR have and freely express very negative views towards WP and its editors. The tone of the Cirt forum is certainly not positive or appreciative. Will Beback talk 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank Will for the on-wiki mention, I was beginning to feel left out. Gee, there are many people on WR who have been attacked, libeled, defamed, and banned from Wikipedia, like it's a big surprise that there are negative views. There are others who still participate on-wiki, but they are at least occasionally disgusted by the spectacle.

However, expressing disgust in the local bar is not at all the same thing as expressing it within dispute resolution process. I called Raul654 a "fat asshole" here, but I never insulted or attacked him on-wiki, he managed to humiliate himself quite effectively. AGF and all that, and fat people may edit Wikipedia, even they are assholes, as far too many of the core turn out to be. Maybe we should look at that some day. Maybe it's ... ah ... the structure?

Looking at the flap about Cirt, I come across an edit to est. Gee, I know something about that, having just completed the Landmark Education Advanced Course. Fascinating. To use Landmark jargon -- literally -- Cirt "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground."

Generally, Landmark has cleaned up the language, Erhard was pretty, ah, blunt, at times, but "You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground™" is still a Landmark "distinction." A very useful one, in fact. You know something unusual has taken place when the Forum leader, and I later saw the same thing in the Advanced Course, stands up and asks, "You paid $495 for the Forum and what did you get?"

And many voices say, at once, and gleefully, "Nothing™" "Tell your family and friends!" he goes on.

When I got home from the Landmark Advanced Course, about two weeks ago, my 9-year-old daughter asked me, "How was the Advanced Course, Dad?"

"Look at me!"

"Awesome, Dad!"

Her mother, who doesn't get along with me recently, long story, heard about this. She's horrified. Cult! Obviously I was brainwashing my daughter. Yeah! Just letting her see my face.

Yeah, they use jargon, but what Cirt called jargon wasn't. Any field that explores stuff out of the ordinary needs jargon. To build comprehension requires efficient language, or it would become impossibly cumbersome. Landmark advises graduates not use the jargon outside of Landmark circles, but people do, anyway, especially newbies, so, then, the Already Always Listening™ leads them to occur to others as enthusiastic graduates and thus arise the stories about "cult." But life is empty and meaningless, and it is empty and meaningless that life is empty and meaningless™. Further, it is what it is, it is not what it is not.

When my kids tell me "Mom is being mean again," I need to be careful not to say, "That's your story," though it certainly is, because kids are accustomed to "story" meaning "lie," but stories are only interpretations, and human beings are meaning-making machines™. The problems arise when we collapse the stories with what happened™.

These are ancient concepts (er, distinctions™), repackaged and taught with efficiency by skilled and highly experienced people who might as well be called highly efficient and effective salesmen. Same skills.

So you can send a check for me for $450 and you didn't even have to sit in a room wishing you could go to the bathroom for 13 hours.

(That, by the way, is a story about Landmark that was probably never true. You can get up and go to the bathroom, but you might have been, in the old days, reminded of your commitment to stay in the room for the three hours between breaks, that's all. And then the story was told, "They wouldn't let me go to the bathroom." Sounds awful, eh? "Ain't it awful" is often the point of stories!)

Seriously, though, Landmark conveys those old concepts, with which I was very, very familiar, in ways that turn them into operational skills, with everybody gets it™ as a declared and effective intention.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

(above)

Arrgh. I had two more short sentences, bringing this back home, and it wouldn't save... what gives? Here they are:

Wikipedians, on the other hand, like Will Beback, never use jargon, right? They just edit articles with NPOV based on RS. They follow NPA with diligence, resorting to DR per policy and guidelines, unless they prefer to haunt ANI or, as in this case, RFC Talk.

On Wikipedia, "consensus" means, "There are more of us with buttons than there are of you, so go away, fringe POV-pusher!"

[Herschelkrustofsky]

(above)

Arrgh. I had two more short sentences, bringing this back home, and it wouldn't save... what gives?

We're testing our prototype tldrometer.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The comment on the RfC talk page by Will Beback

You're right that many of the accounts are "faceless", in that we don't know which, if any, accounts on WP they're connected to.

However we do know in some cases. Jayen466 here has identified as being HRIP7 there. I believe that Cla68 there is the same persona as Cla68 here. I also assume that ABD, Herschelkrustofsky, et al., are also the same people as their WP accounts. I don't think I'm deluded when I say that many people on WR have and freely express very negative views towards WP and its editors. The tone of the Cirt forum is certainly not positive or appreciative. Will Beback talk 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank Will for the on-wiki mention, I was beginning to feel left out. Gee, there are many people on WR who have been attacked, libeled, defamed, and banned from Wikipedia, like it's a big surprise that there are negative views.

Will conveniently overlooks the fact that many people on WR also have and freely express very positive views towards some WP editors. However, we reserve the right to say bad things about creepy, dishonest, agenda-driven activist editors.

[Abd]

We're testing our prototype tldrometer.

Very clever. Frustrate him to death by a sudden inability to see a Preview, and I finally tried just saving the damn thing, it gave me a blank post. So I cut it down until I finally found that only the last sentences caused it to not save. HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that? S'okay with me, I just want to know so I don't waste my time. And if I'm positing multiple posts to get around a deliberate restriction, well, wouldn't that be, ah, disruptive?

I wouldn't want to be disruptive, eh?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We're testing our prototype tldrometer.

Very clever. Frustrate him to death by a sudden inability to see a Preview, and I finally tried just saving the damn thing, it gave me a blank post. So I cut it down until I finally found that only the last sentences caused it to not save. HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that?

I was kidding. In reality, I have no idea what happened to your Preview.