| |
|
  |
 And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case |
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Mon 27th June 2011, 7:13am)  Requests for comment/CirtWho wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not? Come to the party, stay for the Arbitration.... |
|
|
|
|
|
| LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 8:38pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 27th June 2011, 11:10am)
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 |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
As expected, out come the trolls: QUOTE 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 |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 27th June 2011, 10:32pm)
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE(pietkuip @ Tue 28th June 2011, 12:53pm)
Is Cirt still an admin?
He sure is - for the present.QUOTE
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
An interesting observation by Macwhiz: QUOTE 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
