Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Cirt _ Cirt's not dead yet
Posted by: melloden
For those of you who haven't noticed, our dear Scientology-obsessed Cirt is back after a two-month absence.
He's already gotten back to work on Santorum (sexual neologism) (T-H-L-K-D), and I wonder who's paying him for this one.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
"The word became a successful Google bomb when Savage created a website for it, which unseated the Senator's official website as the top search result for his surname on the Google web search engine." That's almost an analogy for Wikipedia itself.
Posted by: Zoloft
Cirt and Friends have doubled the size of the article and increased the references from 33 to 95 in just three days.
I detest Rick Santorum, but this is using Wikipedia as a flame-thrower.
Posted by: thekohser
...this is using Wikipedia as a flame-thrower.
That is Wikipedia's guiding purpose, so I don't know what's eating you.
Posted by: Zoloft
Possibly nematodes.
Posted by: chrisoff
For those of you who haven't noticed, our dear Scientology-obsessed Cirt is back after a two-month absence.
He's already gotten back to work on Santorum (sexual neologism) (T-H-L-K-D), and I wonder who's paying him for this one.
He hasn't had a two-month absence. He's been hanging out at other wiki places. The sister sites and all. He's never GONE. He's addicted to wp. Apparently no other life.
Posted by: Zoloft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)#Note
Posted by: EricBarbour
Well, this probably won't work (Cirt is, after all, crazy).........
......but if you need a bit of ammunition in this argument, you could ask them why they are spending all this effort to defame a minor right-wing politician, when the Wikipedia article about a notorious public-relations firm was recently rewritten, openly and with zero negative information, by an employee of said PR firm. With the full connivance of a well-regarded Wikipedia drone.
Said article was previously full of ugly little embarrassing tidbits like the ones in the Santorum article, but now it looks like a sanitized company press release. (I won't tell you what it is, because Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be informed of abuses. The rot and corruption in their database should be allowed to fester.)
Posted by: Silver seren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)#Note
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(sexual_neologism)#I_am_so_confused
Posted by: Zoloft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29#Note I give up.
Posted by: lilburne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29#Note I give up.
How many links does it takes to create a googlebomb? To hear them talk they make it sound as if you need lots and lots of people. In reality you need very few, a single popular blogger can google bomb pretty much anyone, especially if that person has a somewhat unusual name. Some http://thomashawk.coms will even brag about it.
In any case back in 2003 anyone with a history of internet postings in forums could google bomb anyone simply by changing their forum posting sig. Voila 1000s of pages all linking the same phrase to a single site. Around 2008 google changed the algorithm so it doesn't take much notice of links in sigs, but back in 2003 it was a piece of cake.
Posted by: lilburne
Interestingly in their haste to tag up all the mucky words, probably to hide the Santorum thing in amongst a host of similar edits, they managed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF&diff=next&oldid=429182686 with major problems. Jayen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=430033770#MILF behind.
Posted by: HRIP7
Interestingly in their haste to tag up all the mucky words, probably to hide the Santorum thing in amongst a host of similar edits, they managed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF&diff=next&oldid=429182686 with major problems. Jayen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=430033770#MILF behind.
There is some discussion of the Santorum article at the http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/date.html, starting with http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/108977.html.
Posted by: Guest
--
geni
Obviously, this argument is being drawn out on the lines of personal politics.
Bauder thinks the article might be over the top. A few others agree.
And known "pseudoliberal" free-speechy Wikipedia trolls like Geni, Cunctator,
McWhiney and GWH see no problem with it, and respond to any call for moderation
with smug jeers.
And these assholes are "running" an "encyclopedia". Ya can't make this stuff up.
Posted by: carbuncle
--
geni
Obviously, this argument is being drawn out on the lines of personal politics.
Bauder thinks the article might be over the top. A few others agree.
And known "pseudoliberal" free-speechy Wikipedia trolls like Geni, Cunctator,
McWhiney and GWH see no problem with it, and respond to any call for moderation
with smug jeers.
And these assholes are "running" an "encyclopedia". Ya can't make this stuff up.
What what? Guest posts? When did that start?
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
What what? Guest posts? When did that start?
Posted by: carbuncle
Fred Bauder http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109005.html:
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.
I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.
Fred
Posted by: melloden
Fred Bauder http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109005.html:
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.
I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.
Fred
The santorum neologism article is up again for GA, it seems, too. If it passes, I wonder how much Cirt will be asking for as a bonus.
Also, I've always wondered where he gets his stuff from. I mean, someone who hates the politician isn't just going to ask a random Wikipedia admin if they can write a slanderous article about someone.
Posted by: lilburne
As I said above one can Google bomb anyone who has a name that it is not common. If you put my real name into google the second hit is a photoblog of mine. Nowhere on that blog is my real name mentioned, but 6 years ago I gave permission to a University to use a photo as part of a course website and they credited it with my real name. One link in all of the internet is enough to bring that photoblog to the top of Google with my real name.
Similarly, about 8 years ago I created a forum signature with the word "Codswallop" (not the actual word used but near enough) that linked to a site that promotes the idea that the the decline in garden birds is due to the increase in birds of prey. Within 10 days that word brought the site as the first hit on google. Even today, several years after I've stopped linking the page, that word has the site on the first page of google.
Cirt, George William Herbert, Geni, Will Beback, etc are not common names, and are susceptible to Google bombing. Very few links of those names to attack pages will bring the associated pages up to the top of a Google.
Posted by: HRIP7
Fred Bauder http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109005.html:
Wikipedia as a vehicle. We need to have a policy discussion on-wiki about
this.
I've been actually reading the sources cited; this is interesting and
useful information, but needs to be handled more appropriately by both
Wikipedia and Google. We need to bring the creator, and protector, of the
article into the discussion too.
Fred
To his credit, Fred raised the matter on the article talk page.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109015.html at wikien-l commented on the link farms at the bottom of the article -- three massive templates created by, you guessed it, Cirt, earlier this month, just after the press reported Santorum might run for president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dan_Savage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_neologisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slang
These templates add about 200 incoming links to the article, and thus drive up the article's Google rating, to the point where it is now the number 1 Google result for "Santorum", even ahead of Savage's original Google bomb.
That's http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109017.html, just like in the earlier cases with Kenneth Dickson and Jose Peralta (T-H-L-K-D)/Hiram Monserrate (T-H-L-K-D) (see previous threads).
Posted by: Cla68
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=430960930&oldid=430960652 must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=430960930&oldid=430960652 must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.
Posted by: Cla68
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=430960930&oldid=430960652 must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.
A couple of editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayen466&action=historysubmit&diff=430974357&oldid=430908099 with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.
Posted by: carbuncle
A couple of editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayen466&action=historysubmit&diff=430974357&oldid=430908099 with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.
Probably on to something? Wow. To me, this is just more of the same with Cirt. Same tactics, same motivations, same result.
Jayen466 put an excellent case together, but I am not sure what effect it will have. For one thing, doing this on Cirt's talk page -- the correct and polite WP thing to do -- means that it won't be as widely read as it should be. For another, the "santorum" issue is very muddled. Even if one assumes that everything that Jayen466 says is correct, the question that is likely to be asked is "Has Cirt broken any rules?".
There seem to be some widely divergent views about what should happen with the santorum article, from deleting it, to renaming it, to merging into another Rick Santorum article, to keeping it as is but removing the actual definition of santorum. It will be fairly easy for Cirt and his supporters to defend keeping the article as is, since there is a fractious opposition. And honestly, although many people are apparently having the same reaction to the article -- that it is an unnecessary hit piece -- there isn't any rule against it. The fact that Santorum seems to be a rather odious politician doesn't help.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
A couple of editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayen466&action=historysubmit&diff=430974357&oldid=430908099 with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.
Posted by: chrisoff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savage_Love:_Straight_Answers_from_America%27s_Most_Popular_Sex_Columnist&oldid=431082619
http:///en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savage_Love:_Straight_Answers_from_America's_Most_Popular_Sex_Columnist&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=431084116#Dan_Savage posts on Cirt's page.
Posted by: carbuncle
I started a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33814&hl= about the santorum article in the articles forum, mostly in the interests of later search results. Short version: Cirt isn't interested in santorum, they are interested in Dan Savage because Savage had Scientologists kicked out of a flea market.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=431257046#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt?
Posted by: Zoloft
The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=431257046#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt?
Well, first the Cat in the Hat showed up, then Thing One and Thing Two. They caused a huge mess. Then Little Cat A complained, followed by Little Cat B under his Hat, all the way down to Little Cat Z, who threatened me with a salami. That mess got Hatted with a Voom. Then Bartholomew showed up with some Oobleck and nobody's found a way to get rid of that yet.
Posted by: melloden
The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=431257046#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt?
Well, first the Cat in the Hat showed up, then Thing One and Thing Two. They caused a huge mess. Then Little Cat A complained, followed by Little Cat B under his Hat, all the way down to Little Cat Z, who threatened me with a salami. That mess got Hatted with a Voom. Then Bartholomew showed up with some Oobleck and nobody's found a way to get rid of that yet.
I like salami.
Posted by: Zoloft
I like it too, but the serving suggestion I found to be lacking. But it was when I offered to slice up the Littlest Cat's salami that things became quigley.
Not wiggly. Not jiggly. But all over quigley. He popped up and behaved in a manner most piggly.
...and in a related manner, my http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASantorum_%28neologism%29&action=historysubmit&diff=431270808&oldid=431270687.
Posted by: tarantino
Cirt's use of wmf projects for political activism is currently being discussed on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=431277327#What_administrative_action_is_sought_here.3F, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=54829264#Using_commons_to_host_original_documents, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=431276301#Living_person_Policy_on_a_Meta_Level and the http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/thread.html#108977.
No doubt this is all being instigated by wikihounders who congregate in off-site forums. His supporters include the likes of David Gerard, George William Herbert and Wnt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=430971320&oldid=430971106, lol).
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
His supporters include the likes of David Gerard, George William Herbert and Wnt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=430971320&oldid=430971106, lol).
Posted by: Zoloft
Wikitorum:
The frothy mixture of anal-retentive addition of content and drama-filled accusation against opponents when editors in good standing use discussion based on common sense and basic human decency in an attempt to uphold the stated principle of Wikipedia that articles that touch on living people not be used to create harm to said people.
Social lubrication between editors currying favor with each other to further their future influence onsite and accusations based on bad-faith interpretation of legitimate offsite criticism add a characteristic odor to this mixture.
Wikitorum was first detected by users of Wikipedia in 2001. Massive supplies of it are now available.
Posted by: EricBarbour
aaagggghhhh head hurt head hurt.............
(assholes, all of 'em)
Posted by: lilburne
Wikitorum:
Add it to urbandictionary.
Posted by: Milton Roe
Wikitorum:
Add it to urbandictionary.
A user of WR forum
Once bought some tight pants and he wore 'em.
Then he stooped and he laughed
As he felt a big draft
And he said right away "Wikitorum."
Posted by: Zoloft
Urban Dictonary? I would never dream of attempting such a thing. I am a http://www.tenwordwiki.com/wikitorum
Posted by: chrisoff
There is an arbcom opened on Cirt's political activism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Political_activism
But he has family problems and is too ill and busy to be involved, and requested to be let off.
(Meanwhile he has an FAC going on one of his bacon books.)
Posted by: lilburne
There is an arbcom opened on Cirt's political activism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Political_activism
But he has family problems and is too ill and busy to be involved, and requested to be let off.
(Meanwhile he has an FAC going on one of his bacon books.)
WP is unable to handle these issues. It is a systemic problem. Once they have cited crap on the system it is near impossible to remove it. In this instance the battle lines are drawn, no RFC will resolve it one way or the other, and the default position is to do nothing.
The cites on that particular page are all speculation. Talking media heads pontificating to other talking media head, and chuckling over a bit of toilet humour. That is basically all it is. The cites also demonstrate another problem with WP, all of it is recentism. It doesn't matter whether the citation is from 6 years ago or 6 days ago, the citation itself is almost always a response to some news event of the particular day or week. So: guy says he's gonna stand for office, whadda we know about him? Oh there is that Savage site, that's funny lets work that in. No one else cares, none of his core supporters are going to not vote for him because of it. None of his detractors are going to vote for him if the site suddenly disappears. The middle ground won't give a flying fuck, as Clinton said "Its the economy".