|
|
|
Santorum - it's not about politics at all |
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
The WP article that has created a little bit of controversy lately, Santorum (neologism), comes with a bit of a puzzler - why is Cirt putting so much work into this topic? Jayen466 has shown that Cirt has created articles about pro- and less pro-Scientology candidates in elections, but Rick Santorum seems to be a hardcore fundementalist Christian. There doesn't seem to be any clear connection between Santorum and the CoS (at least none that was apparent from a few minutes with Google). So why is Cirt so gung-ho about this article? You will be surprised to learn that it has something to do with Scientology. It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 5 May 2008. On 7 May 2011, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics. [edit: I somehow missed the fact that the post was from 3 years ago!] This post has been edited by carbuncle:
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 27th May 2011, 7:55am) The WP article that has created a little bit of controversy lately, Santorum (neologism), comes with a bit of a puzzler - why is Cirt putting so much work into this topic? Jayen466 has shown that Cirt has created articles about pro- and less pro-Scientology candidates in elections, but Rick Santorum seems to be a hardcore fundementalist Christian. There doesn't seem to be any clear connection between Santorum and the CoS (at least none that was apparent from a few minutes with Google). So why is Cirt so gung-ho about this article? You will be surprised to learn that it has something to do with Scientology. It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 6 May. On 7 May, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics. Well, if that don't flip mah e-meter. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 27th May 2011, 2:55pm) It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 6 May. On 7 May, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics. I can see why Will Beback likes this guy.
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 7th June 2011, 2:10am) It seems to me that we automatically assume that Cirt is single-mindedly orienting all his edits to attacks on Scientology. But does he have some other preoccupations, like, you know, the sex thing? He seems to be really big on Dan Savage.
Hm, and he did write that article about Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D), too. Perhaps he has pretty high-up connections in the gay community. Interesting, also, that Cirt manages to dodge SlimVirgin's questions on his talk page and then uses the "good faith" DYK removals to change the topic of the discussion. Dravecky can't possibly be an innocent party here ...
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 6th June 2011, 10:10pm) It seems to me that we automatically assume that Cirt is single-mindedly orienting all his edits to attacks on Scientology. But does he have some other preoccupations, like, you know, the sex thing? He seems to be really big on Dan Savage.
I wouldn't be surprised if Benjiboy is socking around the topic somewhere, too. I have no liking for Santorum's politics, but I think its pretty vile that a manufactured neologism is being perpetuated with a full article treatment. If Glenn Beck coined the term "Obamalama" as "the frothy mix of cocaine and semen you get from blowing your dealer in the back of limo while doing lines", let's take bets on how long that article would last.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 10th June 2011, 9:40am) I was wondering whether there was some intersection point between the anti-Scientology cabal and the pro-Gay cabal at Wikipedia, so I did a little reading on Scientology's policy toward gays. It's a mixed bag. Wikipedia has an article called "LGBT topics and Scientology." Why such an article is appropriate for an alleged encyclopedia is another question. But according to this L.Ron Hubbard was initially anti-Homosexuality. According to this he had a gay son who committed suicide in 1976. But then there seems to have been some accommodation between Scientologists and gays in recent years. And between Scientologists and Jews. And between Scientologists and Hollywood. If you want to succeed politically in America, there are some accomodations you just eventually have to make. Otherwise you get more and more marginalized, and pretty soon you're a conservative Republican-- as useless as tits on a boar. Or in Rush Limbaugh's case, tits on a bore. Ms. Palin, if you keep opening your mouth, I'm gunna extend this to you!
|
|
|
|
LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 7:40pm)
stuff
...Gays have money...
They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do? I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible. Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 11th June 2011, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 7:40pm)
stuff
...Gays have money...
They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do? No one has ever said that homosexuality is confined to the middle classes. Though one might consider whether gay skinhead oiks living on some council estate or in bedstit land have more disposable income than those of their hetro skinhead neighbours. Of course Hubbardistas unlike the Jehovah Witnesses don't operate outside the Londis Store. I suspect that the Hubbardistas target the lonely and angst ridden as being easy prey, and that sexuality has little to do with it.
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 11th June 2011, 11:15am) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 7:40pm)
stuff
...Gays have money...
They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do? I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible. Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all. Why spoil the fun by injecting reality into this? Next you'll be suggesting that the "pro-gay cabal" are just, well, gay. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 11th June 2011, 8:15am) QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 11th June 2011, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 7:40pm)
stuff
...Gays have money...
They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do? No one has ever said that homosexuality is confined to the middle classes. Though one might consider whether gay skinhead oiks living on some council estate or in bedstit land have more disposable income than those of their hetro skinhead neighbours. Of course Hubbardistas unlike the Jehovah Witnesses don't operate outside the Londis Store. I suspect that the Hubbardistas target the lonely and angst ridden as being easy prey, and that sexuality has little to do with it. The set of all gay people includes people with money. I don't think Kelly was trying to imply that all gay people have money.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 11th June 2011, 4:15am) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 7:40pm)
stuff
...Gays have money...
They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do? I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible. Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all. That is not all. Children, of which gay people have disproportionately fewer (even if the number isn't zero), are an endless sink of time and financial resources. I can only presume that if this prime fact about children is not first and foremost in your consciousness, that you must not have any. This can be remedied. Go to some of your friends who do have children and ask. Or merely observe closely. Unless they are already rich enough to be able to afford housekeepers and cooks and nannies and drivers and other people as parental surrogates in order to remove some of this load-- you will find them being eaten alive.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 11th June 2011, 4:08pm) An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator. Excuse me? There's nothing "unusual" about that. Esp. when SV is involved. You didn't see this? Or this? You missed the Giffords editwar? It was nothing but admins. This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 12:08am) The recently created sexual slang template, which includes santorum, has now been protected because of edit-warring. An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator. If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do?
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:54am) Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery). That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook. Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS. Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the whole case slowly falls apart. If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual. This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:26pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:54am) Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery). That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook. Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS. Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the whole case slowly falls apart. If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual. Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter. There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 12th June 2011, 8:45pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:26pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:54am) Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery). That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook. Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS. Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the whole case slowly falls apart. If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual. Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter. There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia in the last 96 hours, plus a few hundred at Commons and elsewhere. That's more than most people do in a month, and no different from any other week.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 2:24pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 12th June 2011, 8:45pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 12th June 2011, 4:26pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 12th June 2011, 10:54am) Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery). That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook. Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS. Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the whole case slowly falls apart. If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual. Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter. There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia in the last 96 hours, plus a few hundred at Commons and elsewhere. That's more than most people do in a month, and no different from any other week. Noooooos!!! One of her family is having surgery, and she needs WP to keep her mind off it! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) I am reminded of the recent case where a death row inmate sued about a lethal injection ingredient he said he might be allergic to. I kid you not. The state spent quite a lot of your public defense tax money perfecting this argument, and also quite a lot more of it for the opposition, which was (in the end) adopted by the appeals judge, who said basically: Well, suppose it's the worst allergic reaction you can imagine. What would the result be? Pretty much the same: you get the same corpse, but maybe with hives.... Cirt, your appeal has been noted.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 12th June 2011, 7:12pm) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 12th June 2011, 12:08am) The recently created sexual slang template, which includes santorum, has now been protected because of edit-warring. An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator. If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do? Theoretically at least, administrators are forbidden from editing a page that has been fully protected, unless the edit is noncontroversial and/or backed by substantial consensus. With emphasis on the theoretically.
|
|
|
|
Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sun 12th June 2011, 11:24pm) QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 12th June 2011, 7:12pm) If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do?
Theoretically at least, administrators are forbidden from editing a page that has been fully protected, unless the edit is noncontroversial and/or backed by substantial consensus. With emphasis on the theoretically. I meant that if they're admins, they must have lots of friends who could unprotect. Maybe even one friend could unprotect it, one of the parties makes an edit, another friend protects it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |