Cirt's Scientology edits - February 2011 Options

[Gruntled]

Hey. In case nobody's noticed it's February now. Can some kind mod please close this thread so we can start a new one? And since this is obviously campaigning for Cirt for Dick of the Year award, should it be in a different forum?

[Jagärdu]

That said, nothing published by the ICSA is in anyway, shape or form a credible source when it comes to criticizing well respected academics.

"Well Respected Academic" = source that supports my POV ...

... but if the absurdity of the notion of "Well Respected Academic" were allowed to operate unchecked - then Wikipedia humanities articles would be based entirely on single paradigm populism.

You have contradicted yourself here. First you claim that I mean simply any academic who supports "my" POV when I say that, then you suggest that the phrase represents a hegemonic "single paradigm" within some discipline. I'll grant you the latter, but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge what is mainstream within scholarship. Scholars do that. "Well-respected academics" are well respected by their colleagues in ways we can measure. If you oppose academically hegemonic POVs that's fine, but again Wikipedia's various policies rightly suggest that editors follow mainstream academic thought as much as possible, hegemonic or not. The ICSA is not mainstream, and those academics who have published in their publications about the supposed "scandal" of scholars like Melton have, for the most part, been rebuked or ignored by mainstream scholars in the social sciences and religious studies. ICSA publications are also likely to contain fringe theories like "mind control". So again, nothing wrong with dealing appropriately with fringe and minority POVs, but the suggestion that a scholar IS controversial because of the opinion of someone writing in publication operating on the fringes of the academy is something that should be rightly ignored.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Hey. In case nobody's noticed it's February now. Can some kind mod please close this thread so we can start a new one? And since this is obviously campaigning for Cirt for Dick of the Year award, should it be in a different forum?

I split off a new month. But, I kept it in this forum, because in some respects it is more useful criticism of WP than the DICK contest (which is mainly for recreational purposes.)

[HRIP7]

It seems Daryl's Wine Bar has now closed (for refurbishment). Jimbo wants to have another go at deleting the article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[HRIP7]

On February 1st, Cirt re-added the following to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 2 (T-H-L-K-D), due to appear in the main page's "On this day ..." box the following day:

The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] issued its final ruling in '''''[[Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard]]''''' and affirmed the decision of the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|District Court]]; [[Werner Erhard]] [[Default (finance)|defaulted on the payment]] due to Ney.

Before – After

Howcheng (T-C-L-K-R-D) opined that this had no business appearing in the "On this day ..." section of the main page, but in the end left it in.

I wonder how many anniversaries of court cases Erhard won appear on the anniversary pages.

Incidentally, Cirt's Lord of the Universe (T-H-L-K-D) was also on the main page on February 2nd.

[Milton Roe]

Incidentally, Cirt's Lord of the Universe (T-H-L-K-D) was also on the main page on February 2nd.

Having been worked over by both Jimbo and Will Beback first, so this is a fairly political move.

And Jossi (Fresco)'s head did not explode, because he was permablocked by Viridae, back in June, 2009 (with the explanation being that it was a sock account, like we all believed THAT). Jossi having resigned as administrator, Nixon style, at the end of 2008 after being pwned by Cirt, Gerard, et al. in the Scientology debates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...#Final_decision

Incidentally, I never understood why the discussion of Jossi's Premie roots, well discussed here on WR, never wound up in our editors' section.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This continues to be quality entertainment. I'm not sure that Scott is being entirely forthcoming when he says he has no idea what Will's game is. It's obvious to me. Will is very fearful that Scott will set a precedent, where actually neutral admins will begin invading the turf of corrupt admins who have built little POV fiefdoms for themselves around topics which they WP:OWN and use to push POV. Will must be feeling very vulnerable right now.

[EricBarbour]

This continues to be quality entertainment. I'm not sure that Scott is being entirely forthcoming when he says he has no idea what Will's game is. It's obvious to me. Will is very fearful that Scott will set a precedent, where actually neutral admins will begin invading the turf of corrupt admins who have built little POV fiefdoms for themselves around topics which they WP:OWN and use to push POV. Will must be feeling very vulnerable right now.

Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.

[carbuncle]

Would a mod mind changing the title of this thread to "Cirt's Scientology edits - February 2011" for consistency's sake? Thanks.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod's note: we aim to please.

[Lar]

Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.

I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.

[Peter Damian]

Just to add the background to this, as far as I understand it.

• We all agree scientology is a bad thing
• However, some people think it is such a bad thing, that they are targeting BLPs of people suspected of Scientological associations, and adding all sorts of dubious stuff as though it were at all relevant
• This is also a bad thing.

Is that about right?

[Somey]

Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of Daryl Spam Wine Bar 'n' Restaurant, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece. Which, in turn, didn't mention the CoS connection at all.

It looks like that article is about to be deleted, which is probably just as well. I suppose the only real harm it was doing was to Wikipedia itself though, so personally I wouldn't be bothered about it either way.

[thekohser]

Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of Daryl Spam Wine Bar 'n' Restaurant, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece.

Such a puff piece would be welcomed on other, commercially-operated wikis.

[Lar]

I have modified the following

Just to add the background to this, as far as I understand it.

• We all agree _____X_______ is a bad thing
• However, some people think it is such a bad thing, that they are targeting BLPs of people suspected of pro ______X_______ associations, and adding all sorts of dubious stuff as though it were at all relevant
• This is also a bad thing.

to make the point that _______X_______ has many values on WP.

.... LaRouchism, ID, Cold Fusion advocacy, not liking PETA, not liking Israel, not liking Palestine, Global Warming, etc etc etc.

[Zoloft]

Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.

I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.

For one thing, it demonizes both apes and shit.

[HRIP7]

Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of Daryl Spam Wine Bar 'n' Restaurant, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece.

Such a puff piece would be welcomed on other, commercially-operated wikis.

A point I mentioned in that discussion, as I hope you noticed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[carbuncle]

An anon IP removed an image of South Park co-creator Trey Parker an article about a Scientology-themed episode. Cirt reverted with an edit summary of "highly relevant and appropriate photo and caption" and started the following discussion on the talk page:

Photo of director and writer of the episode

Regarding [1] - The photo of the director and writer of the episode, Trey Parker, is highly relevant and appropriate in this article. Please, do not remove it. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, he wrote and directed the episode. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt entirely, it is perfectly relevant and appropriate director and writer in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a look at featured articles on cartoon episodes, the vast majority do not have a photo of the writer and/or director. When one is included, it is usually because it was their first episode or they personally won an award for the episode. What makes this episode special in relation to Trey? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

because he was personally involved in "closetgate" outside just writing and directing the episode. It bled over into real life.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally Cirt doesn't bother to start talk page discussions when reverting IPs, so I suppose the extra attention is making them more thoughtful. Thanks, OrangeDog, for the chuckles.

[HRIP7]

An anon IP removed an image of South Park co-creator Trey Parker an article about a Scientology-themed episode. Cirt reverted with an edit summary of "highly relevant and appropriate photo and caption" and started the following discussion on the talk page:

Photo of director and writer of the episode

Normally Cirt doesn't bother to start talk page discussions when reverting IPs, so I suppose the extra attention is making them more thoughtful. Thanks, OrangeDog, for the chuckles.

One thing that is striking about the South Park article is that Isaac Hayes' statement about why he quit is not included, although the article makes room for plenty of taunting invective and rumour directed at him and Cruise.

Hayes' statement was widely reported in mainstream press. Hayes spoke of a "growing insensitivity toward personal spiritual beliefs" in the media that was also reflected in the Muhammad cartoons controversy: "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins."

On the Xenu talk page, Cirt dismissed this as "Hayes's-channeling-of-the-Scientology-organization position, often parroted out about so-called 'bigotry...'"

Not including such a widely reported statement is arguably a form of censorship.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.

I'm fairly sure that giving substantial authority to people who are ape-shit crazy is not useful.