Cirt revisited Options

[EricBarbour]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Jeez...

It was created at 1pm on August 23rd, and by
7pm on the 25th, Cirt had taken it to 40,000 bytes
plus 66 references.

That's not "editing", that's paranoid schizophrenia.

[thekohser]

I notice the article says, "Author Jonathan Zittrain noted in his 2009 book published by Yale University Press, The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It, 'as Wikipedia grew it began to attract editors who had never crossed paths before, and who disagreed on articles they were simultaneously editing.'"

Zittrain also spent a whole page of that book discussing Wikipedia Review.

[Moulton]

Posted on the article's talk page...

Suggestion

Cirt, I suggest you copy this article to Google Knol.

You can copy/paste from a fully rendered HTML page directly into the WYSIWYG editor on Google Knol and most (if not all) of the copy & paste contents will be replicated without distortion of the layout. If necessary, you can drop down to HTML editing to fix up any rendering anomalies. You can also select from among three different licensing options for your signed articles on Google Knol.

Generally speaking, any single-author article that generates controversy and conflict on Wikipedia is better published as a signed article by a self-identified author on Google Knol. There, you can take ownership and personal responsibility for your article, invite selected co-authors to collaborate with you to present a selected point of view, or open the article to anonymous or pseudonymous unmoderated editing comparable to the Wikipedia model. In either event, there is a space for comments at the bottom of articles on Google Knol, functionally equivalent to Wiki talk page threads (like this one).

Moulton (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[timbo]

This Article created by Cirt yesterday has been nominated for deletion. He seems to be working feverishly. People seem to be really impressed with his ability to add content and format to the article but are oblivious to how that same work is furthering his obsession

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Cirt wasn't the creator, he single-handedly rescued this from Articles for Deletion... It was an amazing piece of work, actually, take a look at the different versions if you don't believe me... I moved from being a "DELETE" vote to giving him a barnstar in half a day... That dude can write...


t

[A Horse With No Name]

I moved from being a "DELETE" vote to giving him a barnstar in half a day... That dude can write...

He should...he's being paid to do it.

[thekohser]

I notice that the website for the Daryl Wine Bar in New Jersey hasn't really figured out how to display their menus. Maybe Cirt could help them out by posting the menu on their Wikipedia article.

[CharlotteWebb]

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "history of sanctions".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Thu 28th October 2010, 12:52am

[thekohser]

OMG, there's hypocrisy on Wikipedia?!

[rockyBarton]

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "history of sanctions".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...dcasting_System

[A Horse With No Name]

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "history of sanctions".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...dcasting_System

Eh, phooey! Cirt is such a bore!

[carbuncle]

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "history of sanctions".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...dcasting_System

Eh, phooey! Cirt is such a bore!

Cirt has left notices about the AFD at a dozen Wikiprojects, not to mention user pages. How does Cirt manage to get away with such overt canvasing?

[Abd]

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...dcasting_System

That AfD was doomed before it started. The lawsuit is notable, and there is enough detail on it to warrant an article.

However, it is also true that the article is a coatrack. For example, see Cirt's last edit to the article. It shows the existing text in the Aftermath section regarding Erhard's daughter, Celeste. The opening sentence of that section is "In a lawsuit related to similar assertions made in the ''60 Minutes'' broadcast, by journalist John Hubner of the San Jose Mercury News, Werner Erhard's daughter Celeste Erhard sued Hubner and the newspaper seeking [[United States dollar|US$]]2 million, in a case filed in San Francisco Superior Court."

The statement is that this lawsuit is "related." How? "Similar assertions"? One person files a lawsuit against Does 1-20 for X, for a series of alleged torts. Daughter of the person files a lawsuit against someone else for a different set of torts (including alleged broken promises) How is this "related?" sufficiently to give it such prominence? Does the source make that statement? Is there more than one source for this relationship? It looks like Erhard and his daughter are not really connected (that was part of the scandal, in fact, that he'd abandoned his family).

On the Talk page, Cirt defends his article, "Background is appropriate, in order to ground the reader in an otherwise convoluted and confusing history involving Werner Erhard and his various organizations and successor companies."

That would be true for a limited amount of background. This article is full of material that is not actually about the lawsuit, material that, as to detail, belongs in Werner Erhard, Landmark Education, and related articles. What is missing here is an attempt to find consensus, it's quite visible in the Talk page "discussion."

However, so many times I've seen a motive to present facts in a way as to remove what is "confusing" that results in the presentation of a POV. POVs are simple, facts are confusing! Presenting facts clearly and in such a sequence that the reader can discern the situation is an art, but conflicting factions can usually agree as to what the facts are, and Wikipedia sourcing guidelines generally dictate what can be -- and should be -- included, somewhere. The situation with Erhard and Landmark has spawned a series of detail pages, which is proper, it's a way to avoid undue weight, but if each of these pages becomes a coatrack, with the same "facts" -- or opinions -- stated over and over, maintenance has been greatly complicated.

These conflicts can get truly nasty, and when an organization is involved, one being severely criticized, as Landmark has been (rightly or wrongly), socking is to be expected, if the wiki process doesn't seek consensus. Might happen anyway....

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 11th November 2010, 8:09pm

[Abd]

Cirt has left notices about the AFD at a dozen Wikiprojects, not to mention user pages. How does Cirt manage to get away with such overt canvasing?

Well, almost all the notifications were of users who had edited the page, and the nominator really should have notified those people (it's a courtesy). AfD is supposed to be biased toward keep, and notifying the people who have worked on an article will often insure a base of Keep comment. Unless the work has been heavily to remove bias. From the history, Cirt could be confident that notifying the editors who have assisted him would not accomplish that. They were all, however, trivial edits. The only balancing editor there was the nominator.

The nominator, DaveApter (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not sophisticated. Not quite an SPA, but a heavy interest in Landmark Education.

Lotso Wikiprojects notified, including some very weird ones, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Normally, notifying WikiProjects is okay, but ... I'm suspecting that WikiProjects have been selected for some kind of expectation of support for the article. It could be subtle; but it is suspicious that a project like this is notified, when, on the face, it has nothing to do with the article.

There is are some user notifications that are suspicious, those of Magioladitis (T-C-L-K-R-D) , PM800 (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Looking about, I see that Cirt has been heavily involved in editing the Werner Erhard, and one problematic edit popped out at me. He reverted an editor who was right to remove the information. It has little or nothing to do with Werner Erhard. Question is, is the award Erhard received notable? Who else received these awards, and do their articles, if there are any, have such a notification about what happened to Yoghesh Gandhi? I'm seeing signs of POV editing on both sides, likely, but it would take a lot more work to be sure. The inclusion of every mindless detail that can be sourced seems to be a Wikipedia trait. It's a problem with BLPs, as lots of us know!

Well, since I've seen it, here is the poop. According to the very reputable source Wikipedia, Ghandi Memorial International Foundation, which looks "shady as hell," a term of art, gave the "Mahatma Gandhi Humanitarian Award" to these people:

Werner Erhard
Joan Baez
Shirley Temple Black
David Packard
Hogen Fukunaga ... and there were other awards to
Bill Clinton and
Ryochi Sasakawa. In addition, the U.S. Senate hosts a report that the Ghandhi Peace Award was also given to Michael Gorbachev and Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela.

How this worked seems reasonably visible from the Senate report. Sasakawa, a Japanese tycoon, a year after receiving the award, gave the Foundation $500,000. Then, in 1996, Yoghesh Gandhi was able to gain a photo op for Fukunaga with Bill Clinton.

Plus the Foundation gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee (returned in 1996, and this was part of a huge scandal that I remember from the time.) The Senate report claims that this money came from Yoshio Tanaka, another Japanese tycoon, who also has an "Earth Aid International Foundation," and this was all aimed at providing more access for Fukunaga and thus more money for Yoghesh Gandhi to obtain and use.

Okay, there are some obvious possibilities here. In 1988, the award was given to a series of people, and it appears that the goal was to shine up the award and the Foundation. I rather doubt that the prominent recipients of the award paid for it! Warner Erhard was given the award because Gandhi believed that he would be considered an obvious humanitarian, and it appears that the Hunger Project was specifically mentioned with the award.

Unfortunately, Werner Erhard still cites the Gandhi award as evidence of his accomplishments, when, in fact, he's far more notable than that award.... Shooting himself in the foot, certainly as far as his Wikipedia article is concerned! Since he cites it (indirectly, through citing a book that refers to it), since it's been mentioned so much, there is hardly any way to keep both this out and the balancing fact that discredits the award. Which could be much better stated than in the article. The award was a scam, but given to people with real accomplishments, some of them. In order to make the award look more legitimate. If it had just been given to Fukunaga and Sasakawa, who would have noticed?

Cirt was roughly correct. But the presentation of the facts is not likely to give a clear picture to the reader of what actually happened.

I notice that the award to David Packard isn't mentioned in the Packard article. But it is mentioned on the hp web site, as one in a long list of awards that Packard received..

[HRIP7]

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "history of sanctions".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...dcasting_System

Eh, phooey! Cirt is such a bore!

Cirt has left notices about the AFD at a dozen Wikiprojects, not to mention user pages. How does Cirt manage to get away with such overt canvasing?

Cirt is up to her old tricks again. Clever use of the plagiarism and copyright violation meme in the AfD. Of course, guess who placed all those "warnings" ...

[pietkuip]

Cirt is up to her old tricks again. Clever use of the plagiarism and copyright violation meme in the AfD. Of course, guess who placed all those "warnings" ...

On Commons, he tagged photos of the covers of the Book of Mormon for copyright infringement... - it is just a few words, that never were copyrighted anyway. Looks mostly like harassment of the contributors.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Hilarious -- here's Will Beback, the pot, admonishing Jayen466, the kettle, about WIKIHOUNDING of Cirt.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

And here he is again, doing the same with JeremyStalked, whom I believe I have seen posting here.

[Lar]

On Commons, he tagged photos of the covers of the Book of Mormon for copyright infringement... - it is just a few words, that never were copyrighted anyway. Looks mostly like harassment of the contributors.

Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?

[pietkuip]

On Commons, he tagged photos of the covers of the Book of Mormon for copyright infringement... - it is just a few words, that never were copyrighted anyway. Looks mostly like harassment of the contributors.

Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?

You abused your admin buttons to block me when I made deletion requests of your uploads. Those DRs were in line with Commons policy. This one ended in delete; this one was kept by your cronies. But it is good to have such an example, to counter the deletionism on Commons.

[Lar]

On Commons, he tagged photos of the covers of the Book of Mormon for copyright infringement... - it is just a few words, that never were copyrighted anyway. Looks mostly like harassment of the contributors.

Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?

You abused your admin buttons to block me when I made deletion requests of your uploads. Those DRs were in line with Commons policy. This one ended in delete; this one was kept by your cronies. But it is good to have such an example, to counter the deletionism on Commons.

Your blocks, and they are legion, have nothing to do with your deletion requests, as requests. Merely with your combative nature. You really shouldn't criticize others while your own house is in such disarray.