Posted by: rockyBarton

I have had a few encounters with an admin named Cirt who struck me as really territorial about certain articles. Curious, I did a Google search "Cirt wikipedia" and came up with several threads on this board. After having read them and I am shocked at the history of this editor and left wondering how someone like this can be an adminstrator.

Cirt edits more than 18 hours a day and 7 days a week to boot. How can anyone do that?

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

Doesn't Wikipedia have rules against this kind of thing?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Probably just someone who is living off of unearned income (trust fund, settlement annuity, inheritance, or some sort of public pension). We see a lot of that on Wikipedia: socially marginal individuals who are not required to work due to their circumstances, and who fill their otherwise meaningless lives with social maneuvering in the WikiSphere. Many of them have deeply held, often strange, belief systems which they use Wikipedia to express.

Not that this necessarily describes Cirt. But it might.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

I have had a few encounters with an admin named Cirt who struck me as really territorial about certain articles. Curious, I did a Google search "Cirt wikipedia" and came up with several threads on this board. After having read them and I am shocked at the history of this editor and left wondering how someone like this can be an adminstrator.

You can blame Durova, who pushed this horrible editor to adminship. And blame the "community" for giving adminship to someone who was blocked seven times under a number of different account names (and that only came out while the RfA was in progress!).

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

Cirt edits more than 18 hours a day and 7 days a week to boot. How can anyone do that?

Compared to Blofeld, Cirt is a slacker.

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

Paid, perhaps. More than one person, no.

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

Doesn't Wikipedia have rules against this kind of thing?

No, they usually award barnstars for such behavior.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:06pm)

Cirt edits more than 18 hours a day and 7 days a week to boot. How can anyone do that?

It's kinda hard to become an admin if you edit less than that.

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:06pm)

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

Doesn't Wikipedia have rules against this kind of thing?

No, I never have. It's fairly normal on Wikipedia. And no, no rules. As the horse said, it's encouraged in the form of barnstars and adminship is the grand prize.

Posted by: rockyBarton

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:09pm)

Probably just someone who is living off of unearned income (trust fund, settlement annuity, inheritance, or some sort of public pension). We see a lot of that on Wikipedia: socially marginal individuals who are not required to work due to their circumstances, and who fill their otherwise meaningless lives with social maneuvering in the WikiSphere. Many of them have deeply held, often strange, belief systems which they use Wikipedia to express.

Not that this necessarily describes Cirt. But it might.

I think it totally describes Cirt. Look at this edit count and thier most popular topics: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0

Why has this person been made an admin with that kind of histor?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:29pm)

I think it totally describes Cirt. Look at this edit count and thier most popular topics: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0

Why has this person been made an admin with that kind of histor?

Uh, what's wrong with that?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:24pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

Paid, perhaps. More than one person, no.

Do you think someone would create something as promotional as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CorbinFisher]] for free? And that's not a rhetorical question - I really don't know.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:06am)

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

It looks like you've been trying to add things to the List of new religious movements (T-H-L-K-D), but Mr. CirtÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been resisting these due to his apparent belief that groups he considers to be cults should not be treated as "religious movements"?

Presumably Mr. Cirt's bad-faith assumption is that you're trying to promote one such group in particular, and adding numerous groups to the list in order to cover for it... That actually does work sometimes, but if that is indeed what you're doing, it's usually best to make all your additions in one edit, with carefully-checked formatting and citations (i.e., no mistakes) - it reduces the likelihood of immediate reversion.

Posted by: rockyBarton

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:32pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:29pm)

I think it totally describes Cirt. Look at this edit count and thier most popular topics: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0

Why has this person been made an admin with that kind of histor?

Uh, what's wrong with that?

I guest what I think is wrong is that they can have such an obsesive agenda driven behavior and still be in a position to block people.

Look at how active they are.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Cirt&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

They have blocked editors more than 4000 times and deleted over 8000 pages. I think that is abuse of the position of Adminship.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:48pm)

I guest what I think is wrong is that they can have such an obsesive agenda driven behavior and still be in a position to block people.

Look at how active they are.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=CirtâŒ©=en&wiki=wikipedia

They have blocked editors more than 4000 times and deleted over 8000 pages. I think that is abuse of the position of Adminship.

I am surprised Cirt hasn't run for Arbcom yet. I suspect that he's fat enough for the job, if all he does is sit around playing on Wikipedia.

Say, does anyone know who Cirt is off-Wiki?

Posted by: rockyBarton

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:44pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:06am)

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

It looks like you've been trying to add things to the List of new religious movements (T-H-L-K-D), but Mr. CirtÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been resisting these due to his apparent belief that groups he considers to be cults should not be treated as "religious movements"?

Presumably Mr. Cirt's bad-faith assumption is that you're trying to promote one such group in particular, and adding numerous groups to the list in order to cover for it... That actually does work sometimes, but if that is indeed what you're doing, it's usually best to make all your additions in one edit, with carefully-checked formatting and citations (i.e., no mistakes) - it reduces the likelihood of immediate reversion.

I don't have a horse in that race. I was at first facinated with the wierdness of some of the groups then I became facinated with the Witchhunt mentality of the people who are against the groups. Now I am shocked at what Cirt is able to get away with.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:56pm)

I don't have a horse in that race.

What am I, chopped liver?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:48pm)

Look at how active they are.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=CirtâŒ©=en&wiki=wikipedia

They have blocked editors more than 4000 times and deleted over 8000 pages. I think that is abuse of the position of Adminship.

Sorry, I don't follow. How does that mean they have abused adminship? Admins are meant to do that sort of thing.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:56am)

I don't have a horse in that race. I was at first facinated with the wierdness of some of the groups then I became facinated with the Witchhunt mentality of the people who are against the groups.

Well, bear in mind that the standard Wikipedian reaction to that will be "that's what they all say," and that Cirt might well be doing the same thing himself - either promoting a favored group or targeting an unfavored one, by lumping it in with others that are in some way similar. Someone who does this himself/herself is much more likely to notice and suspect others of doing the same thing, often without even realizing it, and often non-justifiably.

The Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D) article is more concerning, but it was posted this month (Dec. 2009), whereas he was made an admin well over a year ago (mid-September 2008). It's possible that he was approached by (or started working for) Corbin Fisher recently, but otherwise we'd probably have to assume that he would have created the article a long time ago if he were a vested employee or principal. Either way, it's dicey - that appears to be the only new gay-porn-related article he's created, and if you get past the gay-porn aspect, you could make a similar CoI claim about his Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (T-H-L-K-D) article, for example - it's basically an advertisement. But obviously, while you can certainly object to the promotion of gay porn on moral grounds, you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 1:49pm)

The Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D) article is more concerning, but it was posted this month (Dec. 2009), whereas he was made an admin well over a year ago (mid-September 2008). It's possible that he was approached by (or started working for) Corbin Fisher recently, but otherwise we'd probably have to assume that he would have created the article a long time ago if he were a vested employee or principal. Either way, it's dicey - that appears to be the only new gay-porn-related article he's created, and if you get past the gay-porn aspect, you could make a similar CoI claim about his Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (T-H-L-K-D) article, for example - it's basically an advertisement. But obviously, while you can certainly object to the promotion of gay porn on moral grounds, you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

Take a look at the articles that Cirt created: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects

It appears that Mr. Cirt is a journalist or publicist or both. The average Wikipediot would not create articles about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Magazine_Editors_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Monthly, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_Mercury_News_West_Magazine I suspect he is doing PR work for Corbin Fisher and the lady who wrote the bacon book -- the writing is too complex and sophisticated for the average hobbyist.

Ditto articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Springfield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Official_Razzie_Movie_Guide and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_Scriptures My cash goes into the bet that Cirt is being well-paid to get Wikipedia coverage for these diverse and fairly obscure books.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 1:18pm)

My cash goes into the bet that Cirt is being well-paid to get Wikipedia coverage for these diverse and fairly obscure books.

So is the anti-cult activity a cover for the PR work, then? I'm not saying the anti-cult activity is bad, of course - quite to the contrary - but if I were a publicist and wanted to gain the trust of the WP community, knowing their general dislike of other cults, that would be at or near the top of my list for ways to gain a reputation among them.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 2:25pm)

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 1:18pm)

My cash goes into the bet that Cirt is being well-paid to get Wikipedia coverage for these diverse and fairly obscure books.

So is the anti-cult activity a cover for the PR work, then? I'm not saying the anti-cult activity is bad, of course - quite to the contrary - but if I were a publicist and wanted to gain the trust of the WP community, knowing their general dislike of other cults, that would be at or near the top of my list for ways to gain a reputation among them.

I suspect the anti-cult stuff is Cirt's own obsession. If he was just focused on that, then he would be yet another OCD case using Wikipedia in order to vent his frustrations.

In reading his articles, it is obvious that Cirt is a professional writer. The articles are much too polished for an amateur site, and there are tricks in his writing that any fellow pen-pusher will immediately recognize.

Cirt doesn't need the trust of the WP "community" -- he gamed the system via Durova and he has what he needs in the way of tools. But I will wager he is not on WP because of the community -- he is obviously getting paid to ensure those articles get online and stay there.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 7:18pm)

My cash goes into the bet that Cirt is being well-paid to get Wikipedia coverage for these diverse and fairly obscure books.

Kinda looks that way doesn't it? Let me know if anyone takes your bet.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 1:37pm)

In reading his articles, it is obvious that Cirt is a professional writer. The articles are much too polished for an amateur site, and there are tricks in his writing that any fellow pen-pusher will immediately recognize.

Agreed; these articles definitely go beyond mere fandom. But my initial point still stands: Everything really does taste better with bacon, no matter how you slice it. (I prefer thick-cut, myself!)

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:49pm)

Either way, it's dicey - that appears to be the only new gay-porn-related article he's created, and if you get past the gay-porn aspect, you could make a similar CoI claim about his Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (T-H-L-K-D) article, for example - it's basically an advertisement. But obviously, while you can certainly object to the promotion of gay porn on moral grounds, you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

Bacon!

Bacon! Bacon! Bacon! Bacon! Bacon! Wherrrrrrrrrre?!

I can't reeeeeeeeead!

Posted by: The Joy

Cirt is something of a jerk. He even argued with an editor that had a "Semi-Retired" tag on his userpage that that was not appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PelleSmith&oldid=330482628

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:51pm)

Say, does anyone know who Cirt is off-Wiki?

I heard http://13gb.com/media/images/movinglawn_scooter.jpg might be his mom, mowing her lawn.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 1:49pm)

you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

Amen, brother.

Posted by: Krimpet

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 2:43pm)

Agreed; these articles definitely go beyond mere fandom. But my initial point still stands: Everything really does taste better with bacon, no matter how you slice it. (I prefer thick-cut, myself!)

Thank the good Lord for http://www.baconnaise.com/.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson confirms that Cirt is being paid to promote people on Wikipedia -- it is an utterly absurd subject (an ex-military type and one-time school board officer who is running for the California state senate), but it is written so vigorously and with such depth that it goes completely beyond the fanboy hobbyist writing that makes up most of WP's BLPs. The article is up for AfD, with the nominator clearly seeing through the charade.

And perhaps one of his clients is WMF? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Rights

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Krimpet @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 8:57pm)

Thank the good Lord for http://www.baconnaise.com/.

Contains no actual bacon. â“ŠD

Posted by: Trick cyclist

You're missing most of the story. He's active all over the place.

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Cirt

Commons: Admin

Wikinews: Checkuser

Wikiquote: Sysop

Wikisource: Sysop

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:37pm)

Cirt doesn't need the trust of the WP "community" -- he gamed the system via Durova and he has what he needs in the way of tools. But I will wager he is not on WP because of the community -- he is obviously getting paid to ensure those articles get online and stay there.

A shame that Durova's finely honed linguistic skills don't extend to finely honed conflict of interest sensing skills.

After Mercury and Cirt, I don't think I'd trust Ms. Armor All to manage personnel at a hot dog stand.

Posted by: SirFozzie

I love the attitude here "He writes too well on vague things. He MUST be paid to do so..."

How about proof, or at least pointing at to what PoV he's writing to?

Or is that an unnecessary step these days?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:40pm)

I love the attitude here "He writes too well on vague things. He MUST be paid to do so..."

How about proof, or at least pointing at to what PoV he's writing to?

Or is that an unnecessary step these days?

The article I mentioned -- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Fisher]] -- caught my attention not because it was well-written, but because it was a complete puff piece, padded out with tangents and trivia. The only other editors are two IPs, one of whom likely either is or works for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza]].

I wasn't sure about the paid editing from that article, but with the links Horsey provided, I am now pretty well sold. This isn't WP and, since we all know there is no penalty for paid editing, I'm not going to raise the issue there. I have enough evidence to form an opinion, which is the only step I'm taking here.

Posted by: rockyBarton

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 6:49pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:56am)

I don't have a horse in that race. I was at first facinated with the wierdness of some of the groups then I became facinated with the Witchhunt mentality of the people who are against the groups.

Well, bear in mind that the standard Wikipedian reaction to that will be "that's what they all say," and that Cirt might well be doing the same thing himself - either promoting a favored group or targeting an unfavored one, by lumping it in with others that are in some way similar. Someone who does this himself/herself is much more likely to notice and suspect others of doing the same thing, often without even realizing it, and often non-justifiably.

The Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D) article is more concerning, but it was posted this month (Dec. 2009), whereas he was made an admin well over a year ago (mid-September 2008). It's possible that he was approached by (or started working for) Corbin Fisher recently, but otherwise we'd probably have to assume that he would have created the article a long time ago if he were a vested employee or principal. Either way, it's dicey - that appears to be the only new gay-porn-related article he's created, and if you get past the gay-porn aspect, you could make a similar CoI claim about his Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (T-H-L-K-D) article, for example - it's basically an advertisement. But obviously, while you can certainly object to the promotion of gay porn on moral grounds, you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

I had no idea this was such a rabbit hole....... Do rabbits eat bacon?

Posted by: Krimpet

QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:06pm)

Contains no actual bacon. â“ŠD

Well, to get my pork fix at the same time, I personally follow Jon Stewart's lead and use it as a dip for http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/02/26/jon-stewart-eats-pancake-wrapped-sausage-dipped-in-baconnaise.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 6:40pm)

I love the attitude here "He writes too well on vague things. He MUST be paid to do so..."

How about proof, or at least pointing at to what PoV he's writing to?

Or is that an unnecessary step these days?

First, be able to see your feet -- then you can see the facts.

Several of Cirt's articles relate to media awards. I've been in the media 25 years and anyone who has been around as long as me will recognize these have no cred beyond those who may have a first person attachment to these laurels. Only a media professional would be aware of these awards and want to write about them.

No person outside of the media would even know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Magazine_Editors_Association exists. I suspect Cirt is a long standing member of this group.

The PR puffery is too obvious in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson did not organically arise out of the pressing need for an encyclopedia article about a school board officer who decided to run in 2010 for the California state senate. This consists of references to 12-year-old articles -- no person outside of the campaign would waste their time hunting up such old references to bolster what is basically an advertisement for an ambitious small time politician seeking a local office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Fisher got a DYK that cited the gay porno company's health benefits and 401(k) plan. No encyclopedic coverage would dig that deep (there is nothing unusual about a company offering health benefits or a 401(k). Nor would anyone highlight that for DYK tribute -- especially when the real story that would entice the average Net reader is the studio's attempt to cash in on Levi Johnston's 15 minutes of fame -- unless an attempt is being made to spin the company's cred.

Cirt repeatedly uses critics' reviews as a means to push credibility. That is stretched to the fraying point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Hurlbut-- getting critical confirmation from the Syracuse Post-Standard? The funny thing is that Cirt intentionally plays down the one thing Hurlbut is famous for -- being the recipient of Christian Bale's scatological tirade from earlier this year. That is not an accident -- I suspect Hurlbut engaged Cirt to write the article, since downplaying that high-profile event makes Bale look good (and there is no reason to do that, unless you want to shoot Bale's next films).

I can go on and on, but it is fairly obvious that these articles are the result of a professional writer/publicist. It reminds me of the Abbott and Costello exchange in their dice routine:

Costello: Did I do something wrong?
Abbott: No, you did something too right!

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well, well. It's about time someone ran afoul of Cirt and started asking questions.....

Everything said above is essentially correct: he (she?) 's an asshole, he's a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21135 Wiki-player, he loves to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive86#User:Cirt.2C_User:Mosedschurte.2C_User:Jayen466.2C_and_User:98.149.75.138_reported and toss the banhammer, and he's long been suspected of editing for pay--except by Durova and the other oldtimers who protect him. Primarily because he's had his nose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_1#Triple_crown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_1#Spiffier_triple_crown.2C_new_awards_available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_2#Barnstar_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_2#Simpsons_WikiProject_Triple_Crown ass for the last 2 years. Plus, sucking up to other manic editors during their RFAs (including East 718, GlassCobra, John Carter, and furry-freak Tony Fox). Because he supported these mutants at RFA, they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Disagreement_with_Cirt.27s_analysis in disputes.

According to the record, he first appeared on Sept. 22, 2007, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt Sept. 15, 2008. Note the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20302 in which the Witch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt#Oppose his precious identity.

Oh, and: he's been suspected of being a Scientologist, because of his aggressive pwnage of Hubbard-related articles....despite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_3#Cirt.2C_are_you_a_Scientologist.3F and otherwise pushing an anti-Scientology line. His obsession with Battlefield Earth is truly bizarre.

Even weirder: he's been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_29#Curt_Wilhelm_VonSavage_.E2.86.92_Werner_Erhard of being Werner Erhard.....eh, maybe he's just a graduate of one of Erhard's courses?

In case you're wondering: it's impossible to do research on-wiki about Cirt's identity, as he has deleted and oversighted the early history of his userpage. But you will find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive201#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#WP:HARASS_by_User:Smee_reported_by_User:Justanother_.28posted_here_as_requested_by_User:Jersey_Devil.29 interesting.

So, he was previously called Smee (back to May 2006), then before that Smeelgova (whose edit history is lost) and Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (also lost). All notorious for 3RR battles over Scientology articles.

Conclusion? You can be an unpleasant, abusive, corrupt Wikipedian.
Just suck up to powerful admins first, and you'll get away with it.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 3:44am)

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 6:40pm)

I love the attitude here "He writes too well on vague things. He MUST be paid to do so..."

How about proof, or at least pointing at to what PoV he's writing to?

Or is that an unnecessary step these days?

First, be able to see your feet -- then you can see the facts.

As long as someone is following the rules, paid editing is fine. In fact, I say more power to them. If Cirt is the first editor to make a living editing Wikipedia, perhaps he/she should be interviewed by anyone who happens to be working on a book about Wikipedia?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 12:06pm)

Cirt edits more than 18 hours a day and 7 days a week to boot. How can anyone do that?

Good heavens ... the Barton is right.

I know within the madness that is the Whackopedia this sounds ridiculous but not-for-profits DO have legal responsibilities towards their voluntary workers equivalent to commercial companies, as I affirmed in the topic on the exploitation of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27823&hl=minors and relating to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27192&hl=minors.

I saw cases of this myself with editors, such as the rabid anti-Japanese Korean Caspian blueÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) . In that case there are grounds to suspect the account was the facade for a team, e.g. the anti-Japanese Korean cyber activists, unfortunately called VANK. The question is not just how they can edit for 18 hours ... but how they can account for the research time too?

I could imagine that anything within the religious cult area, pro or con, would encourage similar ventures.

For the record, Caspian blue is STILL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule&action=history ... and this is for those you that suggest calling them Kimchi warriors is racist ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onigiri&diff=next&oldid=333091694.

Here is an average 12 hour day ... And he was still going at 08:49, 23 December 2009, another 12 hour shift.

QUOTE

23:22, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) The Official Razzie Movie Guide â€Ž (per GA Review)
23:22, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:The Official Razzie Movie Guide â€Ž (â†’Removed from article, per GA Review: new section) (top)
23:21, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) The Official Razzie Movie Guide â€Ž (per GA Review)
23:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (img max to 17)
23:19, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/17 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:17, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/16 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:15, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:The Official Razzie Movie Guide/GA1 â€Ž (fix)
23:15, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:The Official Razzie Movie Guide/GA1 â€Ž (thx)
23:09, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/15 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:07, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/14 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:06, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/13 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:05, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/12 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:03, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/11 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
23:01, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/10 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
22:58, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/9 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
22:56, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/8 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
22:21, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/19 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:21, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/18 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:21, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/17 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:21, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/16 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/15 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/14 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/13 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/12 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/11 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/20 â€Ž (started a layout page as a blank template to begin with, will add image later)
22:19, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture â€Ž (â†’Selected pictures list: up to 20) (top)
22:16, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (img max to 7)
22:16, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/7 â€Ž (img size) (top)
22:15, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/7 â€Ž (txt fm img pg)
22:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/6 â€Ž (txt fm lede) (top)
22:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/5 â€Ž (txt fm lede) (top)
22:09, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/4 â€Ž (txt fm lede) (top)
21:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/10 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/4 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/5 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/6 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/7 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/8 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture/9 â€Ž (started layout page)
21:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected picture â€Ž (added slots up to 10)
21:14, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:List of Unification Church members â€Ž (â†’Remove "Former members"?: re Borock)
20:38, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N User talk:Soccer.champ15678 â€Ž (General note: Editing tests on Church of Scientology. using TW) (top)
20:38, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Nm User talk:Inkxy â€Ž (Added welcome template to user talk page using Friendly) (top)
20:34, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Template talk:Did you know â€Ž (â†’Julia Moon: thx)
20:26, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker â€Ž (â†’What?: cmt)
20:24, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:List of Unification Church members â€Ž (â†’Remove "Former members"?: re)
20:23, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Cirt â€Ž (re)
14:18, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/27 â€Ž (date) (top)
14:17, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 27)
14:15, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/27 â€Ž (27)
14:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/26 â€Ž (26) (top)
14:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/27 â€Ž (layout)
14:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/26 â€Ž (layout)
14:09, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (27) (top)
14:02, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Bioterrorism â€Ž (++ new portal, Biological warfare) (top)
13:54, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/Layout â€Ž (temp wikiquote fix, will create page later) (top)
13:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Robert C. Tapella â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella closed as keep) (top)
13:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Robert C. Tapella â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella closed as keep) (top)
13:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkmarx â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete)
13:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep)
13:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English for Integrated Studies Project â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete)
13:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Yeap Chor Ee â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeap Chor Ee closed as keep) (top)
13:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Yeap Chor Ee â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeap Chor Ee closed as keep)
13:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeap Chor Ee â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep)
13:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And Beyond â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete)
13:49, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Jehochman â€Ž (â†’Bennetta Slaughter edit and COI: query)
13:48, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 25)
13:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (25)
13:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/25 â€Ž (25) (top)
13:44, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/25 â€Ž (layout)
13:39, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 24)
13:39, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (24)
13:33, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/24 â€Ž (24) (top)
13:30, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/24 â€Ž (layout)
13:27, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/23 â€Ž (23) (top)
13:26, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/23 â€Ž (layout)
13:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Nm User talk:94.168.189.5 â€Ž (Added welcome template to user talk page using Friendly)
13:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Battlefield Earth (film) â€Ž (â†’change to cite 91 - small update needed: re) (top)
13:20, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Battlefield Earth (film) â€Ž (â†’Critical reception: per talkpg) (top)
13:19, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/22 â€Ž (22) (top)
13:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/22 â€Ž (layout)
13:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/21 â€Ž (21) (top)
13:06, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/21 â€Ž (layout)
12:54, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 20)
12:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (20)
12:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/20 â€Ž (20) (top)
12:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/20 â€Ž (layout)
12:37, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 19)
12:37, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (19)
12:36, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/19 â€Ž (19) (top)
12:34, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/19 â€Ž (layout)
12:32, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 18)
12:31, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (18)
12:31, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/18 â€Ž (18) (top)
12:27, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/18 â€Ž (layout)
12:26, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Joshua Lederberg â€Ž (swap img)
12:02, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:201.114.230.90 â€Ž (Warning: Vandalism on Oxford Capacity Analysis. using TW) (top)
12:02, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N User talk:201.114.245.153 â€Ž (Warning: Vandalism on Oxford Capacity Analysis. using TW) (top)
12:01, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Oxford Capacity Analysis â€Ž (rvv) (top)
11:53, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 17)
11:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (17)
11:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/17 â€Ž (ce) (top)
11:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/17 â€Ž (17)
11:50, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/17 â€Ž (layout)
11:02, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 16)
11:02, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (16)
11:01, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/16 â€Ž (16) (top)
10:59, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/16 â€Ž (layout)
10:48, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 15)
10:48, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (15)
10:48, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/15 â€Ž (15) (top)
10:46, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/15 â€Ž (layout)
10:33, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 14)
10:32, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (14)
10:32, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/14 â€Ž (cite fix) (top)
10:32, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/14 â€Ž (14)
10:27, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:List of Unification Church members â€Ž (â†’Remove "Former members"?: re)
10:26, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 13)
10:25, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (13)
10:24, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/13 â€Ž (13) (top)
10:23, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/13 â€Ž (layout)
10:19, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 12)
10:18, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (12)
10:18, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/12 â€Ž (12) (top)
10:16, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/12 â€Ž (layout)
10:07, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 11)
10:06, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (11)
10:06, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/11 â€Ž (11) (top)
10:05, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/11 â€Ž (layout)
09:59, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 10)
09:59, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (10th)
09:58, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/10 â€Ž (10th) (top)
09:57, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/10 â€Ž (layout)
09:55, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 9)
09:54, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (9th)
09:54, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/9 â€Ž (9th) (top)
09:52, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/9 â€Ž (layout)
09:50, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 8)
09:49, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (8th)
09:49, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/8 â€Ž (8th) (top)
09:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/8 â€Ž (layout)
09:38, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 7)
09:38, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (7th)
09:38, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/7 â€Ž (7th) (top)
09:34, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/7 â€Ž (layout)
09:28, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 6)
09:28, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (6th)
09:28, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/6 â€Ž (link) (top)
09:27, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/6 â€Ž (add 6th)
09:25, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/6 â€Ž (layout)
09:19, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group â€Ž (â†’Twelve Tribes (New religious movement): fmt header)
09:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 5)
09:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (add 5th)
09:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/5 â€Ž (add 5th) (top)
09:01, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare â€Ž (quote max to 4)
09:00, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote â€Ž (4th)
09:00, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/4 â€Ž (add 1) (top)
08:57, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Portal:Biological warfare/Selected quote/4 â€Ž (layout)
08:51, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Template:Cults â€Ž (ce) (top)
08:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Tyler Hendricks â€Ž (header) (top)
08:44, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:AustralianRupert â€Ž (â†’Thank you: new section)
08:42, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:List of Unification Church members â€Ž (â†’Remove "Former members"?: cmt)
08:41, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Template talk:Cults â€Ž (â†’Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: cmt) (top)
01:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Fisher (radio) â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Silva Entertainment â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbarian Brothers â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:12, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RazorCMS â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:James Berardinelli â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli closed as keep) (top)
01:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) James Berardinelli â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli closed as keep) (top)
01:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep) (top)
01:11, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Åaciak â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Kaparova â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete)
01:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Drama, the Musical Episodes â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
01:08, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Landmark Education â€Ž (â†’Adding Course Content Section: cmt) (top)
01:07, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Things you can do â€Ž (add a few relevant requests)
00:56, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Portal:Biological warfare/Wikiprojects â€Ž (fmt) (top)
00:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:United States Naval Gunfire Support debate â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate closed as keep)
00:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) United States Naval Gunfire Support debate â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate closed as keep) (top)
00:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obooko â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warner Newman(Singer) â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:47, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep) (top)
00:46, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rlap â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:46, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urimajalu â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:44, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Scientology status by country â€Ž (â†’Wiki Arb Comment: ce) (top)
00:44, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Scientology status by country â€Ž (â†’Wiki Arb Comment: re)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Daniel â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Deacons (law firm) â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deacons (law firm) closed as keep) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Deacons (law firm) â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deacons (law firm) closed as keep)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deacons (law firm) â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat and Dog (comic) â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Complicit â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicit closed as keep) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Talk:Complicit â€Ž (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicit closed as keep) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complicit â€Ž (Closing debate, result was keep) (top)
00:10, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzhak Goldstein â€Ž (Closing debate, result was delete) (top)
00:05, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Cirt â€Ž (Undid revision 333149905 by 38.109.88.194 (talk) remove sarcastic comments from IP)
00:04, 22 December 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history â€Ž (â†’Nomination and voting: Support)

And in his defence, he did keep the topic on Nazi UFOs.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 2:41am)

Even weirder: he's been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_29#Curt_Wilhelm_VonSavage_.E2.86.92_Werner_Erhard of being Werner Erhard.....eh, maybe he's just a graduate of one of Erhard's courses?

Being Erhard would explain his knowledge of the media industry and its awards, based on Erhard's career at Parents Magazine. No one outside of the media could possibly know about the topics Cirt is writing on.

It would also explain the absurd surplus of time that he has in playing on Wikipedia -- being a retired senior, he would have plenty of time to kill.

But that doesn't quite explain the blatant PR pieces for the California state senate candidate, the obscure cinematographer, the crummy books, unless...

...Barton is half-right -- there is more than one person involved with the Cirt account.

I have a theory. There is a single person in control of the writing of the Cirt account -- anyone trained in analyzing writing styles can spot that immediately. However, it might make sense if someone else (another individual or an agency) is doing the PR for the politician, cinematographer and the authors and they are hiring Cirt (Erhard?) to write up these articles.

Erhard has seven children. Are any of them involved in PR?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 1:52pm)

I have a theory. There is a single person in control of the writing of the Cirt account -- anyone trained in analyzing writing styles can spot that immediately. However, it might make sense if someone else (another individual or an agency) is doing the PR for the politician, cinematographer and the authors and they are hiring Cirt (Erhard?) to write up these articles.

Erhard has seven children. Are any of them involved in PR?

I suspect that some of his children don't work for him, you know, after the http://www.rickross.com/reference/est/est20.html and all...

Posted by: thekohser

Hey, I've got to say any editor who basically single-handedly gets a Wikinews article http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_founder_embroiled_in_affair_and_financial_allegations&oldid=591596 is probably okay in my book.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 7:41am)

Oh, and: he's been suspected of being a Scientologist, because of his aggressive pwnage of Hubbard-related articles....despite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_3#Cirt.2C_are_you_a_Scientologist.3F and otherwise pushing an anti-Scientology line. His obsession with Battlefield Earth is truly bizarre.

Even weirder: he's been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_29#Curt_Wilhelm_VonSavage_.E2.86.92_Werner_Erhard of being Werner Erhard.

Eh? He's vehemently anti-Sci, but now he tries to edit in the way he's been advised to do, and more impartially now he has more wiki-experince, hence he even bans anti-Scis.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:48pm)

They have blocked editors more than 4000 times and deleted over 8000 pages. I think that is abuse of the position of Adminship.

Wow, you're an idiot. It's even possible that some of your criticism is valid, but when you say blatantly stupid things like this, it will tend to make people not listen to you.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:49am)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 11:56am)

I don't have a horse in that race. I was at first facinated with the wierdness of some of the groups then I became facinated with the Witchhunt mentality of the people who are against the groups.

Well, bear in mind that the standard Wikipedian reaction to that will be "that's what they all say," and that Cirt might well be doing the same thing himself - either promoting a favored group or targeting an unfavored one, by lumping it in with others that are in some way similar. Someone who does this himself/herself is much more likely to notice and suspect others of doing the same thing, often without even realizing it, and often non-justifiably.

The Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D) article is more concerning, but it was posted this month (Dec. 2009), whereas he was made an admin well over a year ago (mid-September 2008). It's possible that he was approached by (or started working for) Corbin Fisher recently, but otherwise we'd probably have to assume that he would have created the article a long time ago if he were a vested employee or principal. Either way, it's dicey - that appears to be the only new gay-porn-related article he's created, and if you get past the gay-porn aspect, you could make a similar CoI claim about his Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (T-H-L-K-D) article, for example - it's basically an advertisement. But obviously, while you can certainly object to the promotion of gay porn on moral grounds, you can't deny the basic fact that everything does, indeed, taste better with bacon.

Agree about the bacon. If somebody creates a gay porn article that pretty much suggests they are gay, no? Same with somebody who creates the article on George ("Sulu") Takai's autobiography, which is sort of about his coming out of the Jeffries Tube, if you will. There's also a lot of correlation with Cirt's interest in Tom Cruise and his being in the closet (he's edited that South Park "Stuck in the Closet" episode). All of which ties in with Project Chanology, hatred of cults in general and Scientology in particular. Less COI than I thought, but a big interest in cults, gayness, being in the closet, films, and razzberry bad films. Also paranoia of biowarfare.

So we know something about Cirt's personality, but this really tells us little about who he is. "Smee" is of course Capt. Hook's lovable pirate mate in Peter Pan, which again is a perfect identifier for the guy Cirt apparently is. A Peter Pan lovable pirate-- does it get gayer?

If Curt has had much experience with being gay and closeted, handwashing and fear of germs, with cults and organized religion, we can expect him to have covered his tracks as well as anybody, since he's had lots of practice.

As for his being in the pay of somebody, I'm not seeing it that clearly. The books Twisted Scriptures and the one on the Razzberrry Awards are in his interest area, as is anything related to bioterrorism (which again ties into cults like the Rajneeshees, and also with the biowarfare theme in Battlefield Earth, back to an obscession with Tom Cruise, and so on and so on).

I would bet money this guy is not Werner Erhard. That idea is laughable.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

If somebody creates a gay porn article that pretty much suggests they are gay, no?

If the article is along the lines of a Shankbone-Benji "yum yum" droolfest, yes. But the Corbin Fisher article is written as a business piece, not the Wiki equivalent of a wet dream. Why mention the health care and 401(k) aspects of the Fisher operation? No one who is interested in hot guys would even think of throwing that into a profile of a beefcake factory.

We may find it hard to fathom, but many people not associated with our funhouse actually takes Wikipedia seriously -- to the point of viewing articles on a person, company or topic to be a validation that it is, indeed, notable. The Fisher piece is conceived as a PR work, not a celebration of boy-meets-boy.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

So we know something about Cirt's personality, but this really tells us little about who he is. "Smee" is of course Capt. Hook's lovable pirate mate in Peter Pan, which again is a perfect identifier for the guy Cirt apparently is. A Peter Pan lovable pirate-- does it get gayer?

There is nothing gay about Smee or the pirates in "Peter Pan" -- don't confuse the Disney cartoon or the Mary Martin show with the original source. Smee is an old man character -- most gay men would not want to be associated with the notion of being a senior.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

As for his being in the pay of somebody, I'm not seeing it that clearly. The books Twisted Scriptures and the one on the Razzberrry Awards are in his interest area, as is anything related to bioterrorism (which again ties into cults like the Rajneeshees, and also with the biowarfare theme in Battlefield Earth, back to an obscession with Tom Cruise, and so on and so on).

Some of Cirt's articles are, obviously, based on his own personal interests and don't fit into the pattern. That is to be expected from someone who appears to live and breathe Wikipedia.

But, at the same time, some articles just don't make sense at all -- the California state senate candidate, the Portland theater group, the obscure books, etc.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

I would bet money this guy is not Werner Erhard. That idea is laughable.

I disagree. I think that theory would solve at least 75% of the puzzle -- it is the other 25% (the obvious paid article creation) that remains hazy.

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

It's even possible that some of your criticism is valid, but when you say blatantly stupid things like this, it will tend to make people not listen to you.

How much do you weigh?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 6:22pm)

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

...but when you say blatantly stupid things... it will tend to make people not listen to you.

How much do you weigh?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 1:36pm)

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 6:22pm)

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

...but when you say blatantly stupid things... it will tend to make people not listen to you.

How much do you weigh?

I am glad that you got the joke. You can take the rest of the day off now.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:22pm)

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 12:44pm)

I would bet money this guy is not Werner Erhard. That idea is laughable.

I disagree. I think that theory would solve at least 75% of the puzzle -- it is the other 25% (the obvious paid article creation) that remains hazy.

That he's actually Werner Erhard himself? That's ridiculous - even if most of his est-related edits weren't anti-Erhard, the last thing that guy would be doing these days is editing Wikipedia articles about other cults. Anyway, there are lots and lots and lots of people who have it in for cults and cult leaders in general.

Anyway, there's a legitimate argument to be made that this guy might be the target of real-world retaliation by come of these cult people if he's identified, so if anyone should happen to find out who he is, please, don't post it publicly - even if he is running an edit-for-pay service. I realize this might further suggest he's using the anti-cult activity to deflect attention from the possibility that he's editing for pay, but even if he is, some of these cults are dangerous. Some even more dangerous than the Wikipedia cult, at least to individuals who cross them.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Oh, I forgot to add: Cirt was suspected of being Erhard, because he has engaged in so much anti-Scientology editing, and because he used a name that Erhard used at one time as a pseudonym (Curt Wilhelm VonSavage).

I doubt that Cirt is Erhard, but I would not be surprised to find out that he had taken EST or Forum training, or one of its even-scarier offshoots, like Lifespring. You wanna talk about scary cults? Lifespring makes the Scientologists look like amateurs.

It must suck to start out as a mere salesman of self-help courses, and then be hailed as a "cultural icon of the 1970s". And then be harassed by customer lawsuits, partner lawsuits, and the IRS.

Erhard wasn't so much a bizarre figure himself, as he was a magnet for bizarre people.......

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 8:32pm)

Anyway, there's a legitimate argument to be made that this guy might be the target of real-world retaliation by come of these cult people if he's identified, so if anyone should happen to find out who he is, please, don't post it publicly - even if he is running an edit-for-pay service.

Wasn't that the argument Durova made in his RfA?

In all seriousness, Cirt did a smashing job covering his tracks. But we should thank him for leaving such juicy clues!

Posted by: Trick cyclist

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th December 2009, 1:32am)

Anyway, there's a legitimate argument to be made that this guy might be the target of real-world retaliation by come of these cult people if he's identified, so if anyone should happen to find out who he is, please, don't post it publicly.

I quite agree that it's wrong to post people's real names publicly here if they haven't disclosed them. Of course, the WMF must know who he is because he's a checkuser on Wikinews. Also, something I missed before, Wikinews for some reason has its own ArbCom and he's a member of that too. Does that make him a public figure by Wikilogic?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th December 2009, 6:44am)

Wasn't that the argument Durova made in his RfA?

The exact quote from Durova was, "some of Cirtâ€™s contributions are to controversial topics. It is darn near guaranteed that an editor who writes about Scientology and related subjects will step on some toes, no matter how polite he is..."

...which is true, more or less. All I'm saying is that he's on the side of the angels as far as the Scientologists are concerned, no offense to anyone here who might be a Scientologist. (OK, maybe a little offense.) Even if his only goal in involving himself in that topic area was to provide cover for freelance-publicist work, you have to respect the amount of effort that went into it, not to mention the cojones (relatively speaking - it's still just the internet, after all).

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Thu 24th December 2009, 11:47am)

Of course, the WMF must know who he is because he's a checkuser on Wikinews. Also, something I missed before, Wikinews for some reason has its own ArbCom and he's a member of that too. Does that make him a public figure by Wikilogic?

Maybe, with the usual disclaimers about limited context, no-legal-protections and what-not... I agree that someone who displays a distinct POV on cult-related topics has no business being a CheckUser, if we grant that IP addresses are better at telling you about a person's cult affiliations than they are at most things (due to the fact that some cults pursue their online activities within walled compounds that use shared IP's).

So they really should take that "bit" away from him IMO, but given that WP is a cult in itself, I can see why they'd want anti-cult guys in those positions - other cults are basically competition for WP, and Web 2.0 is a highly competitive environment to begin with. But of course, that's another interesting thing about WP - it functions and even operates as a cult, but it's more effective than most at convincing their members they're not in a cult at all, and indeed there are aspects of it (such as the ease by which you can quit, without physical or financial consequences) that they can point to in order to "prove" that it isn't a cult. And yet it has everything else - the ideology, the charismatic leader, the "single mad belief," the organizational hierarchy, the "inner circle" with secret knowledge and privileges, the love-bombing and other forms of psychological binding... the list goes on. You'd think it would be hard for an anti-cult person to reconcile these things, but there must be something about the non-physical nature of it all that makes it OK for them.

All quite fascinating.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th December 2009, 11:40am)

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 24th December 2009, 6:44am)

Wasn't that the argument Durova made in his RfA?

The exact quote from Durova was, "some of Cirtâ€™s contributions are to controversial topics. It is darn near guaranteed that an editor who writes about Scientology and related subjects will step on some toes, no matter how polite he is..."

From which it follows that such editors who insist on editing on those topics should never be made admins without agreeing on a topic block for their former interest area. Since we know what tends to happen when admins step on peoples' toes in persuit of an agenda. Even a righteous one like exposing on WP what a mess of vile and crazy scam-hood scientology is. (Nearly as bad as Roman Catholicism was in 1500

)

Posted by: wikiwhistle

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 24th December 2009, 6:26am)

Oh, I forgot to add: Cirt was suspected of being Erhard, because he has engaged in so much anti-Scientology editing, and because he used a name that Erhard used at one time as a pseudonym (Curt Wilhelm VonSavage).
...

Erhard wasn't so much a bizarre figure himself, as he was a magnet for bizarre people.......

I've worked with Cirt on an anti-Landmark article years ago. Erhard is a dodgy f*ck IMHO as shown in a a documentary about him and his family on 60 minutes. His family didn't have any initial choice to be around him until later life, he certainly didn't entice them like a magnet.

I'm sure Erhard wouldn't have minded being a cultural icon if it attracted more people to his courses etc by making them more high profile.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 24th December 2009, 1:50pm)

Since we know what tends to happen when admins step on peoples' toes in persuit of an agenda. Even a righteous one like exposing on WP what a mess of vile and crazy scam-hood scientology is. (Nearly as bad as Roman Catholicism was in 1500

)

Yeah, but the church in 1500 at least had a great art program going on.

Posted by: rockyBarton

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 23rd December 2009, 5:44pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 5:48pm)

They have blocked editors more than 4000 times and deleted over 8000 pages. I think that is abuse of the position of Adminship.

Wow, you're an idiot. It's even possible that some of your criticism is valid, but when you say blatantly stupid things like this, it will tend to make people not listen to you.

I see where what I said about the blocks and deletions was uninformed. I will return the favor to you, by saying that when say such blatently hostile things such as "Wow, your and idiot" it will tend to make people not want to interact with you.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Mon 28th December 2009, 10:52am)

...when (sic) say such blatently (sic) hostile things such as "Wow, your (sic) and (sic) idiot" it will tend to make people not want to interact with you.

Whew. Good thing Friday didn't say "Wow, your and idiot", then!

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 28th December 2009, 5:01pm)

QUOTE(rockyBarton @ Mon 28th December 2009, 10:52am)

...when (sic) say such blatently (sic) hostile things such as "Wow, your (sic) and (sic) idiot" it will tend to make people not want to interact with you.

Whew. Good thing Friday didn't say "Wow, your and idiot", then!

He did say "Wow, you're an idiot" though, which adequately describes Friday (and the person Friday was talking to).

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Nerd @ Mon 28th December 2009, 12:01pm)

He did say "Wow, you're an idiot" though, which adequately describes Friday (and the person Friday was talking to).

And, let's face it, it may very well cause people to find the experience of interacting with him somewhat distasteful.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Thu 24th December 2009, 5:47pm)

the WMF must know who he is because he's a checkuser on Wikinews.

Of course it's foundation policy never to imply ownership in the event of a name; always use the indefinite article: a name, neverâ€¦

QUOTE

Wikinews for some reason has its own ArbComâ€¦

Please tell me you're not implying that the en.wikipedia arbcom should have more jurisdiction than it already does.

QUOTE

â€¦and he's a member of that too. Does that make him a public figure by Wikilogic?

No, only by WR:LOGIC.

Posted by: Trick cyclist

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 28th December 2009, 6:38pm)

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Thu 24th December 2009, 5:47pm)

the WMF must know who he is because he's a checkuser on Wikinews.

Of course it's foundation policy never to imply ownership in the event of a name; always use the indefinite article: a name, neverâ€¦

I have no idea what that means. Should I have said A WMF not the WMF?

QUOTE

Wikinews for some reason has its own ArbComâ€¦

Please tell me you're not implying that the en.wikipedia arbcom should have more jurisdiction than it already does.

Of course not, i rush to assure you with both hands. My point is that Wikinews is quite a small project. I can understand why say German WP would need such a body but there are many many WMF sites bigger and busier than Wikinews that seem to manage without (maybe manage better without) any sort of ArbCom.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Mon 28th December 2009, 7:22pm)

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 28th December 2009, 6:38pm)

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Thu 24th December 2009, 5:47pm)

the WMF must know who he is because he's a checkuser on Wikinews.

Of course it's foundation policy never to imply ownership in the event of a name; always use the indefinite article: a name, neverâ€¦

I have no idea what that means. Should I have said A WMF not the WMF?

QUOTE

Wikinews for some reason has its own ArbComâ€¦

Please tell me you're not implying that the en.wikipedia arbcom should have more jurisdiction than it already does.

Of course not, i rush to assure you with both hands. My point is that Wikinews is quite a small project. I can understand why say German WP would need such a body but there are many many WMF sites bigger and busier than Wikinews that seem to manage without (maybe manage better without) any sort of ArbCom.

An ArbCom, once elected with at least 25-30 folk participating, can appoint CUs and OVs. A wiki without an ArbCom has to muster 25-30 folk each time it wants to appoint new CUs or OVs.

May or may not be a factor.

Posted by: Trick cyclist

QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 29th December 2009, 2:20am)

An ArbCom, once elected with at least 25-30 folk participating, can appoint CUs and OVs. A wiki without an ArbCom has to muster 25-30 folk each time it wants to appoint new CUs or OVs.

May or may not be a factor.

That's an interesting point I didn't know. Still, it may not be that easy to get enough votes in an ArbCom poll. Looking through the archives of requests for CU on WQ I see that they made up numbers by drafting in people who rarely edited. In at least one case, they'd never edited WQ before. I suspect that you can get people to do that for a CU election more easily than for an ArbCom election.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Tue 29th December 2009, 4:05pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 29th December 2009, 2:20am)

An ArbCom, once elected with at least 25-30 folk participating, can appoint CUs and OVs. A wiki without an ArbCom has to muster 25-30 folk each time it wants to appoint new CUs or OVs.

May or may not be a factor.

That's an interesting point I didn't know. Still, it may not be that easy to get enough votes in an ArbCom poll. Looking through the archives of requests for CU on WQ I see that they made up numbers by drafting in people who rarely edited. In at least one case, they'd never edited WQ before. I suspect that you can get people to do that for a CU election more easily than for an ArbCom election.

Once or twice. (you no doubt spotted my name in there once or twice... looking back, not sure that was such a good idea)

Posted by: chrisoff

*Cirt is quite aggressive and territorial about "his" articles. And a lot of them are quite stupid, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bale_Out and all the bacon cookbook articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon:_A_Love_Story. But he successful plays the politics of aggression. Interesting too, that he writes his articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_BLT_Cookbook&action=history.

He is very active. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirt/DYKs and loves bacon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon:_A_Love_Story

I say he is not paid, merely obsessed.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sat 20th February 2010, 2:13am)

*Cirt is quite aggressive and territorial about "his" articles.

Very aggressive and threatening, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010.

Posted by: Killiondude

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 3:36am)

Very aggressive and threatening, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010.

So much for the great http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=36759829 Durova gave about Cirt on Commons.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 5:36am)

Very aggressive and threatening, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010.

Interesting - I'm not sure I would call that "aggressive and threatening," maybe "arrogant and officious" - but whatever you call it, that's a ridiculous overreaction. All you did was change "1975" to "1974" in an article he just started working on, and Cirt's telling you he's going to bring you up on AN/I or even block you. And this after you'd tried to remove the needless word "controversial" from the article on Carlos Latuff (T-H-L-K-D), so it should have been clear that you're not some sort of BLP prankster or anything like that.

Btw, this is also why we tell people, even if they're admins like Cirt, that if you're going to post articles about uhh, controversial subjects, try to do it in as few edits as possible, and try to wait until it's past the first 7-10 days (the "safety window") before you get into any bickering over details. Common sense, folks!

Even so, something like that... that's just dumb. Does Cirt not like you (i.e., Mr. Kuiper) for some other reason, like a past dispute over some other topic?

Posted by: chrisoff

QUOTE

So much for the great http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=36759829 Durova gave about Cirt on Commons.

Yup! Durova's great judgement on display again. She is overly impressed with external trinkets, maybe because she can't seem to collect enough to give her the "free pass" she craves to have her numerous opinions taken seriously.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:46pm)

Even so, something like that... that's just dumb. Does Cirt not like you (i.e., Mr. Kuiper) for some other reason, like a past dispute over some other topic?

I had nominated a stash of his YouTube uploads on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Interview_Aaron_Saxton_part_1_of_7.ogv. Because I really do not think that commons should host that kind of personal videos. In response, cirt immediately had a biography ready of this little-known person, with dozens of references (including news sites in Turkish). Quite amazing.

Other than that, I do not remember any interaction with cirt. Scientology is not a major interest for me. Could be that he does not like me because I have been critical of Durova.

Posted by: Mathsci

Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pieter_Kuiper...

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 25th March 2010, 6:08pm)

Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pieter_Kuiper...

And now Durova says that my response was an aggressive statement. Yes, I am well aware that the safe thing to do is to repent and to grovel, and to promise that I will never do it again. Whatever "it" is.

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:40pm)

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 25th March 2010, 6:08pm)

Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pieter_Kuiper...

And now Durova says that my response was an aggressive statement. Yes, I am well aware that the safe thing to do is to repent and to grovel, and to promise that I will never do it again. Whatever "it" is.

Hey guys. Honestly Piet, what ain't aggressive about a call to desysop someone over a single mistake that he corrected ten minutes after you explained your objection--even though you refused to provide a source? Were the heavens going to fall because the wiki published a birth date as 1975 instead of 1974 for a little while?

Let's cut to the chase. A couple of days ago Cirt posted to the Commons AN board because someone had been trying to edit war speedy deletion tags onto some of his uploads. I think you ignored the fact that they already had OTRS tickets and reached a snap decision. Even though Cirt has never provoked you, you haven't let up on him since. You nominated an entire category of his video uploads for deletion without having watched them. Then when he created an article to demonstrate they were within project scope you got all over his back at en:wiki. When he tries to talk things over with you, you accuse him of bad faith.

It's already been explained to you that fellow has written more featured content about Scientology across multiple WMF projects than anybody else. Yet you refuse to give him a chance and I can't see why. There's a fifty pound chip on your shoulder; it must be causing back pain.

WMF has a lot of problems. Cirt ain't one of them. There's plenty of stuff at the other end of the bell curve at Commons that deserves a critical eye. Some of the images I've been category sorting are so badly out of focus they probably deserve deletion. Let's just put this behind us and get back to work.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 25th March 2010, 8:24pm)

Hey guys. Honestly Piet, what ain't aggressive about a call to desysop someone over a single mistake that he corrected ten minutes after you explained your objection--even though you refused to provide a source? Were the heavens going to fall because the wiki published a birth date as 1975 instead of 1974 for a little while?

Why does that reasoning only apply to him, and not Cirt? If anybody overreacted here, it was Cirt. It looks like he's trying to intimidate people with block warnings and such over trivial issues, presumably as a ball-thrusting move, to keep people from daring to question him. Unless he was just in a bad mood, for some reason?

QUOTE

Let's cut to the chase. A couple of days ago Cirt posted to the Commons AN board because someone had been trying to edit war speedy deletion tags onto some of his uploads. I think you ignored the fact that they already had OTRS tickets and reached a snap decision.

I'm not sure I would call it a "snap decision" - the dates don't lie, do they? In effect, Cirt is saying that a 16-year-old boy was an "official" in Scientology, when in fact he was probably just a under-aged security guard on one of their happy-boats. You and I know that Scientology does a lot of weird shit, including promote people into positions of responsibility based on things like e-meter scores and how much they look like certain celebrities, but most people don't know that. Nor is there any real evidence for that claim in this particular case, IMO.

Now, I happen to believe that anything that bashes, crushes, smushes, slices and/or dices Scientology is a good thing, and clearly Cirt does too, and that's also a good thing. But you have to maintain some subtlety, some appearance of equitability. Scientology is already on the ropes on WP, isn't it? Is it really necessary to behave like this when the good guys are winning?

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th March 2010, 2:06am)

Now, I happen to believe that anything that bashes, crushes, smushes, slices and/or dices Scientology is a good thing, and clearly Cirt does too, and that's also a good thing. But you have to maintain some subtlety, some appearance of equitability. Scientology is already on the ropes on WP, isn't it? Is it really necessary to behave like this when the good guys are winning?

Saxton left Scientology in his early twenties. The mainstream press of New Zealand and Australia didn't see his age as an obstacle and neither did the Australian Senate. NOR aside, there's no second guessing how much authority an irresponsible organization would grant to someone that young. Consider how many Wikipedia administrators are in their teens.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:22pm)

NOR aside, there's no second guessing how much authority an irresponsible organization would grant to someone that young. Consider how many Wikipedia administrators are in their teens.

And how many WP admins are insufferable assholes.

Why do you keep boosting Cirt's on-wiki profile, crazy woman?

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Fri 26th March 2010, 2:24am)

Let's cut to the chase. A couple of days ago Cirt posted to the Commons AN board because someone had been trying to edit war speedy deletion tags onto some of his uploads. I think you ignored the fact that they already had OTRS tickets and reached a snap decision. Even though Cirt has never provoked you, you haven't let up on him since. You nominated an entire category of his video uploads for deletion without having watched them. Then when he created an article to demonstrate they were within project scope you got all over his back at en:wiki. When he tries to talk things over with you, you accuse him of bad faith.

Putting OTRS-tickets on files on Commons is used as method of protection. Very few people can know what the ticket is based on, so they abstain from having an opinion when a deletion request is filed. But the information may be very trivial, like the uploader giving his IRL name.

I do no think it is a good idea that Commons acts as a megaphone for personal video with someone's messages to John Travolta, to the President, or to the Pope. I regard such videos as out of scope (I saw a few minutes, that was enough), so I proposed to delete them. In response Cirt wrote an enwp article with dozens of references, lots of it bogus (newspapers in Romanian or Turkish are unlikely to be good sources about Australians). When I correct his guess of birth year, he starts off with warnings on my talk page about defamation bla bla bla.

To save his video uploads, he inflates Saxton further and includes this unknown person in a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scientologists&oldid=351875120#Officials, together with Ron Hubbard himself...

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:22pm)

Saxton left Scientology in his early twenties. The mainstream press of New Zealand and Australia didn't see his age as an obstacle and neither did the Australian Senate. NOR aside, there's no second guessing how much authority an irresponsible organization would grant to someone that young.

Ehh, okay, but you're not really addressing the point, which is why pump up his CoS credentials at all? If not to make these allegations against Scientology, well-deserved though they undoubtedly are, seem like they're coming from someone "high up in the organization" when they're really not? At what point does it become propagandizing, at a level that could leave WP open for legitimate accusations of exaggerating the facts to serve the anti-CoS "agenda"?

Personally, I would think it's enough that Saxton was just working for them, but I could be wrong, I suppose. Have there been instances where ex-Scientologists have been discredited by both sides simply because they hadn't carried a fancy-enough title while they were in?

This is all putting aside the whole issue of what happens when the guy eventually wants to put all this behind him, which presumably nobody on WP cares about.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:09am)

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Fri 26th March 2010, 2:24am)

Let's cut to the chase. A couple of days ago Cirt posted to the Commons AN board because someone had been trying to edit war speedy deletion tags onto some of his uploads. I think you ignored the fact that they already had OTRS tickets and reached a snap decision. Even though Cirt has never provoked you, you haven't let up on him since. You nominated an entire category of his video uploads for deletion without having watched them. Then when he created an article to demonstrate they were within project scope you got all over his back at en:wiki. When he tries to talk things over with you, you accuse him of bad faith.

Putting OTRS-tickets on files on Commons is used as method of protection. Very few people can know what the ticket is based on, so they abstain from having an opinion when a deletion request is filed. But the information may be very trivial, like the uploader giving his IRL name.

I do no think it is a good idea that Commons acts as a megaphone for personal video with someone's messages to John Travolta, to the President, or to the Pope. I regard such videos as out of scope (I saw a few minutes, that was enough), so I proposed to delete them. In response Cirt wrote an enwp article with dozens of references, lots of it bogus (newspapers in Romanian or Turkish are unlikely to be good sources about Australians). When I correct his guess of birth year, he starts off with warnings on my talk page about defamation bla bla bla.

To save his video uploads, he inflates Saxton further and includes this unknown person in a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scientologists&oldid=351875120#Officials, together with Ron Hubbard himself...

This sort of thing has been going on for years. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28265&view=findpost&p=220436.

Editing in this topic area has often been very acrimonious, and given that Cirt does very useful work in it, people tend to close ranks and give Cirt the benefit of the doubt. Not always justifiably so, in my view; I agree with the content points you made.

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:34am)

Ehh, okay, but you're not really addressing the point, which is why pump up his CoS credentials at all? If not to make these allegations against Scientology, well-deserved though they undoubtedly are, seem like they're coming from someone "high up in the organization" when they're really not? At what point does it become propagandizing, at a level that could leave WP open for legitimate accusations of exaggerating the facts to serve the anti-CoS "agenda"?

Personally, I would think it's enough that Saxton was just working for them, but I could be wrong, I suppose. Have there been instances where ex-Scientologists have been discredited by both sides simply because they hadn't carried a fancy-enough title while they were in?

This is all putting aside the whole issue of what happens when the guy eventually wants to put all this behind him, which presumably nobody on WP cares about.

If it were up to me, Dead Trees would be policy and most of the BLP subjects on either side of that fence would get a no nonsense courtesy deletion if they asked for it. Tom Cruise would stay no matter what, but people like Saxton could opt out. He's in his mid-thirties now and doesn't appear to regret his decision about going public.

Other than that, can't really answer. I don't edit Scientology and am not actually opposed to the religion. Just like to see policies applied there the same as anywhere else. Three years ago I made the mistake of dealing with a sockfarm that had already been checkuser-confirmed but nobody had acted upon. Two arbitration cases later it's obvious why no sensible person wanted to touch that with a ten foot pole.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Fri 26th March 2010, 12:39pm)

checkuser-confirmed

Another one of those words and phrases that change meaning once you're on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 26th March 2010, 8:00pm)

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Fri 26th March 2010, 12:39pm)

checkuser-confirmed

Another one of those words and phrases that change meaning once you're on Wikipedia.

In this instance the meaning is the straightforward one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS the CU request (it's the section from April 2007). As of June 2007 nothing had really been done about it. CU wasn't even strictly necessary because in enough instances they were editing unlogged from IP addresses that resolved directly to the Church of Scientology.

When the matter came up on the boards they complained that a lot of people on the Internet hated them and they needed to do something about it. Taken strictly on that level, they did have a point. But they wouldn't take on board the idea that their edits were also publicly available and that they were risking a bigger PR problem than the one they were trying to solve.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Cults are like drug dealers. It is relatively quick and easy to rise up the ranks and it needs to be because burn out and atrophy is intense.

A gifted 20 odd year old could easily find themselves in a position near to or beside the cult elite ... even if it might take them a little bit longer and leaving to work out what was going on as they lack alternative 'real life' experience. A bit like a large proportion of Wikipedians, it seems.

It is only after they gain that alternative 'real life' experience that they can then make and judge the cult experience and see it for what it was. Of course, the cults try and stop individuals from gaining that.

The Church of Scientology has very obviously, by their own actions, loaded the entirely 'society versus "the cults"' discussion so as to make it almost impossible to have. Which is perhaps what they wanted.

The same kind of thing goes on on the Wikipedia all the time. If it not possible to seed doubt to disarm an exposÃ©, then sub-consciously even, they seek to make discussion impossible.

If the Church of Scientology are the embodiment of the "masculine form" of cult activity, i.e. hard, aggressive, dominant; the Brahma Kumaris are the equal and opposite but same, the "feminine embodiment" of the cultic principle. And the same kind of dynamics are going on. I believe Cirt, in a previous incarnation, also had a minor dabble in that cult war but left it as 'a bridge too far' in wider society's defence against cultic encroachment on its commonwealth.

I can understand why someone might be motivated to defend society from the encroachment of cultic memes into the realm of common understanding.

Posted by: pietkuip

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sat 27th March 2010, 10:50pm)

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

Nah, it was Sai Baba he was into.

But, as they say, there is always the risk that fighting monsters turns you into one.

Piet versus Cirt, or Cirt versus Piet (I dont know which it is) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=352419899&oldid=352418143.

I would not put it past Scientologists, or other cultists, to accuse cult awareness activist of being cultists or even Scientologists. Yes, folks, it gets that confusing.

The business of Scientology seems to have rightly earned status of modern folk devils.

There are alternatives even for Scientologists, like being nice to your neighbors and privately practising Freezone Scientology ...

Would not it be the American thing to do to formally separate the Wikipedia from Religion?

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sat 27th March 2010, 11:50pm)

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

Look, I think it is fairly clear what happened her. Smeelgova (later Smee), someone blessed with considerable personal and technical resources (and likely some relevant professional experience, as others here have pointed out before) had come to Wikipedia with a strong anti-cult agenda focused on Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D) and Landmark Education (T-H-L-K-D), and a side interest in the related topic of Scientology. By June 2007, her zealous editing had netted her a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ASmeelgova&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 block http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ASmee&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1. She had also apparently been subjected to some sort of real-life harassment by the Erhard crowd and/or Scientology.

Then along came Durova's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS, based on the checkuser result revealing that people from the Church of Scientology were editing Wikipedia as a group. Smee was listed as a party to this case and posted a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Statement_by_Smee, but did not participate in the evidence and workshop sections, instead dropping out of sight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smee for a period of three months.

It's no secret that the early Wikipedia luminaries included a number of committed anti-Scientologists (like David GerardÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a former arbitrator, shown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Royal_Oak_bootstrap_meet.jpg with Jimbo) who had been active on alt.religion.scientology for many years and saw the potential Wikipedia had in exposing Scientology. Perhaps, around the time of the COFS case, someone clueful impressed upon people in the Foundation that it might be very useful to have someone motivated and resourceful like Smee on the team who would keep an eye on things like Scientology, as long as they would follow policy, and impressed upon Smee that it might be best to disappear for a while.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Cirt Smeelgova returns to Wikipedia (with a sex change) as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage (actually a Werner Erhard pseudonym, later renamed Cirt), with an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard&diff=prev&oldid=159558805 to Scientology and Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D), a professionally cleaned up site and Internet history, and Durova as a mentor.

Now, 30 months and http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=CirtâŒ©=en&wiki=wikipedia 100,000 http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0 later, Cirt is an admin on Wikipedia (thanks to Durova's good offices), an administrator on Commons, an arbitrator, checkuser, and administrator on Wikinews, an administrator on Wikisource, an administrator on the English Wikiquote, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. As well as the leading contributor of featured portals to Wikipedia. And throughout this time, Durova has faithfully popped up to support Cirt and smooth troubled waters on various projects. She also closely collaborated with Cirt on the 2009 Scientology arbcom case. And, it must be acknowledged, she has given him private talkings-to to curb his excesses and gotten him to edit more responsibly. Cirt is a highly respected editor today, a stunning success for someone who started out as a POV warrior with a block log.

The only downside of this success is that people like PelleSmithÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , an academic who left Wikipedia in disgust over Cirt's bullying, or Pieter KuiperÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) here, have no means of redress on the occasions when Cirt's old zeal and persecutory instinct rears its head. It's the same old problem, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Cirt does a lot of sterling work, but it would be good if Wikipedia policy space stopped curving around him whenever his agenda raises a justified eyebrow (as in the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Saxton), and if there were an end to the personal insinuations and vendettas levelled against anyone who dares challenge him.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:15am)

Nah, it was Sai Baba he was into.

You got Cirt mixed up with AndriesÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) or someone, methinks.

If Cirt had beef with with Sathya Sai Baba (T-H-L-K-D), that article wouldn't be the perennial mess that it is.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 28th March 2010, 11:46am)

You got Cirt mixed up with AndriesÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) or someone, methinks.

You are correct, it was Andries ... thank you ... I was just trying to remember the other's name.

From memory, Andries did not have so much support from the Elite. I found your exposÃ© very interesting. The Pee-dia has a lean towards the the geekier, sci-fi scientology religion (pro and con) rather than the whacky Hindu ones.

Posted by: HRIP7

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=352550450#Pieter_Kuiper_2 Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Compare the swiftness of response at WP:AE in Pieter Kuiper's case to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology_in_Germany&oldid=351755837 I was saddled with when I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#User:Wispanow a few weeks ago.

[[WP:RANDY]], anyone? But my opponent had the benefit of not antagonising an anti-Scientologist. He just thought Time Magazine and the BBC were anti-German racists, deleted sourced content, edit-warred (partly against Cirt, funnily enough) and introduced unsourced material (making the text say the opposite of what the cited source said). That's an okay view to have, you're still welcome at Wikipedia, and given every chance to make sure your content concerns are addressed. Pity Pieter will not have the same opportunity.

And my comment about the moderated discussion is no disrespect to SilkTork, the moderator, who's a cool guy, and meant well.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 28th March 2010, 5:32pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=352550450#Pieter_Kuiper_2 Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Thanks a lot for your support there. One really needs an eloquent lawyer in such a forum. As you already noticed, a topic ban on Scientology would not affect my editing on enwp. But I would appeal anyway, to expose Cirt's methods for silencing opposition.

I looked at some of the YouTube material that he uploaded to commons. In my view, it reflects very badly on the anti-cult people. They often do not really seem to respect basic liberties, like freedom of religion.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 28th March 2010, 8:59pm)

I looked at some of the YouTube material that he uploaded to commons. In my view, it reflects very badly on the anti-cult people. They often do not really seem to respect basic liberties, like freedom of religion.

One of my beefs is with the "binary thinking" tendency. That is to say, the reduction of any difference or debate to two side, e.g. cultie and anti-cultie.

In reality, there are always many more side, e.g. cultie, anti-cultie, cult awareness, cult apologist, family protectionist, cult-look-I-really-dont-care-but-try-and-be-cool-and-not-fuck-up-or-bug-the-rest-of-us-ists, cult-you've-got-to-fucking-joking-ists or cult cult-they-are-in-for-the-money-power-sex-whatever-ists ... and people would be good to see this. There is a whole rainbow of hues about the debate.

And then, of course, like some 18th C battle, you have the official observers sitting on hill watching and the media whipping up the storm.

I am not sure you can label anyone "anti-cult" and they are not even one. The other part of the binary myth. Everyone is on side or the other and they are all One. Not true. Most of the supposedly "anti-cult" people just belong to other equally cultic religions, the primary one being Evangelistic Christianity, and all it is a turf war between to gangs.

But, kind of like viking raiders on a mental level, cults do feed off families (stealing members) and their host societies. One does need to be tooled up and pretty battle hardened to cope with their onslaught because the culties are generally super-naturally motivated. It is "the cause", "victory is assured", and their god is with them against the evildoers.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:59pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 28th March 2010, 5:32pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=352550450#Pieter_Kuiper_2 Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Thanks a lot for your support there. One really needs an eloquent lawyer in such a forum. As you already noticed, a topic ban on Scientology would not affect my editing on enwp. But I would appeal anyway, to expose Cirt's methods for silencing opposition.

You're welcome. If you're unhappy with either the warning you received or the outcome of the second thread, you should take your complaint to the arbitration committee (a few of whom are actually reading and contributing to Wikipedia Review).

I've suggested closing the thread without result and recommend you agree to voluntarily step away from the dispute for 48 hours. I honestly believe it is the best thing you can do under the circumstances.

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 29th March 2010, 10:10am)

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

This is a technique, not just limited to cultic religions such as Scientology and the Brahma Kumaris, but elsewhere too, e.g. the climate change debate.

I think it arises both knowing or deliberately, and as unconscious behavior learned at a young age.

If dominance of the argument or topic page is not possible, the first level is just seeding doubt in some way. Such proponents know that to seed doubt in the audiences mind, however spurious, illogical and unethical, is half way to winning. Doubt can be equally seeding by clever manipulation, blunt lies, ad hominem attacks etc.

We had it on the Brahma Kumari topic with the cult adherent plastering vast tags all over an article he knows is entirely factually accurate ... and then scoring extra points or provoking by constantly reverting its removal.

If that does not work sufficiently, the proponent is aggressive enough and the environment susceptible to abuse, then the next level is to make the environment as highly objectionable as possible, "upping the ante" to the point were most of the audience will then leave or avoid the situation, e.g. the use of hyperbole, or "atrocity pornography" in many WWII related debates. However "clean" or "right" the victim is, they are still tainted by the "smell". The winner being who ever is willing and able to be the dirtiest.

Interestingly, we also had another move which I had not seen before which was the attempt to involve other parties, especially entirely uninformed, the ploy being that someone that did not know was better to be involved than someone that did ... making the article inaccurate. A fudge war.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 29th March 2010, 6:10am)

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

The lack of efficient and fair dispute resolution process has that effect on Wikipedia, whenever editors run into real-world conflicts that take more than a few hundred-words-or-less potshots to understand.

I looked at the WP account for HRIP7, having noticed the cogent comment here. Impressed, I am.

Posted by: HRIP7

Pieter Kuiper is topic-banned for two weeks under the old COFS article probation. (I wish I had realised that was still in effect a couple of weeks ago.)

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 29th March 2010, 6:39pm)

Pieter Kuiper is topic-banned for two weeks under the old COFS article probation. (I wish I had realised that was still in effect a couple of weeks ago.)

Yes, I see that now. Strange decision, three points were considered trivial, sentencing is based on me trying to make explicit in policy that one should not guess birth dates of living people.

But Cirt got exaxtly what he wanted: I am supposed to leave Cirt alone forever. Any future collision he will refer to this prohibition against "hounding". It is disgusting.

I think I will write an appeal on Wednesday, and then take an Easter wikibreak.

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sat 27th March 2010, 10:50pm)

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

I think that anyone who has had an editorial dispute with Pieter Kuiper would find his calling Cirt "aggressive" very amusing.

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 1:56pm)

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

In his case, the latter. What we know about Mr. Cirt does tend to suggest an unusually high level of familiarity with (mostly US-based) cults and their methods, which as I've pointed out before is a good thing in most cases. Why he got so worked up in this instance I have no idea, other than the usual reaction of WP'ers to people who try to thwart them in some way.

He probably shouldn't have been made an admin, but I'd even be willing to back off on that statement if he showed some self-restraint in these kinds of situations, and maybe apologized to Mr. Kuiper here (which is obviously not gonna happen).

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 29th March 2010, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 1:56pm)

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

In his case, the latter. What we know about Mr. Cirt does tend to suggest an unusually high level of familiarity with (mostly US-based) cults and their methods, which as I've pointed out before is a good thing in most cases. Why he got so worked up in this instance I have no idea, other than the usual reaction of WP'ers to people who try to thwart them in some way.

He probably shouldn't have been made an admin, but I'd even be willing to back off on that statement if he showed some self-restraint in these kinds of situations, and maybe apologized to Mr. Kuiper here (which is obviously not gonna happen).

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left? (As for Pieter Kuiper, my experience with him is that when the argument is over there is nothing to motivate an apology.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:55am)

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sat 27th March 2010, 11:50pm)

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

Look, I think it is fairly clear what happened her. Smeelgova (later Smee), someone blessed with considerable personal and technical resources (and likely some relevant professional experience, as others here have pointed out before) had come to Wikipedia with a strong anti-cult agenda focused on Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D) and Landmark Education (T-H-L-K-D), and a side interest in the related topic of Scientology. By June 2007, her zealous editing had netted her a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ASmeelgova&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 block http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ASmee&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1. She had also apparently been subjected to some sort of real-life harassment by the Erhard crowd and/or Scientology.

Then along came Durova's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS, based on the checkuser result revealing that people from the Church of Scientology were editing Wikipedia as a group. Smee was listed as a party to this case and posted a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Statement_by_Smee, but did not participate in the evidence and workshop sections, instead dropping out of sight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smee for a period of three months.

It's no secret that the early Wikipedia luminaries included a number of committed anti-Scientologists (like David GerardÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a former arbitrator, shown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Royal_Oak_bootstrap_meet.jpg with Jimbo) who had been active on alt.religion.scientology for many years and saw the potential Wikipedia had in exposing Scientology. Perhaps, around the time of the COFS case, someone clueful impressed upon people in the Foundation that it might be very useful to have someone motivated and resourceful like Smee on the team who would keep an eye on things like Scientology, as long as they would follow policy, and impressed upon Smee that it might be best to disappear for a while.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Cirt Smeelgova returns to Wikipedia (with a sex change) as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage (actually a Werner Erhard pseudonym, later renamed Cirt), with an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard&diff=prev&oldid=159558805 to Scientology and Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D), a professionally cleaned up site and Internet history, and Durova as a mentor.

Now, 30 months and http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=CirtâŒ©=en&wiki=wikipedia 100,000 http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Cirt&namespace=0 later, Cirt is an admin on Wikipedia (thanks to Durova's good offices), an administrator on Commons, an arbitrator, checkuser, and administrator on Wikinews, an administrator on Wikisource, an administrator on the English Wikiquote, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. As well as the leading contributor of featured portals to Wikipedia. And throughout this time, Durova has faithfully popped up to support Cirt and smooth troubled waters on various projects. She also closely collaborated with Cirt on the 2009 Scientology arbcom case. And, it must be acknowledged, she has given him private talkings-to to curb his excesses and gotten him to edit more responsibly. Cirt is a highly respected editor today, a stunning success for someone who started out as a POV warrior with a block log.

Is he banging her?

Sorry, but somebody has to ask the hard but obvious questions.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 2:20pm)

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left?

Obviously that depends on who you ask, but I've always figured the number to be around 60 percent. But the Return on Desysopping Investment (RoDI) figure doesn't chart as a straight line, it's more of a steep hockey-stick curve (to borrow a term from the GW debate). That is to say, if you desysop the worst 1 percent, which is only about 20 people, you'll probably solve 50 percent of your admin-related problems (ARPs); if you desysop the worst 5 percent you'll solve 70 percent of ARPs; the worst 10 percent and you'll solve 80 percent of ARPs, and so on.

I could put together a graphic if that would help, but you get the general idea. I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC). It still wouldn't be a proper encyclopedia of course, and you'd still have content-related issues, but those things are probably inevitable.

Posted by: pietkuip

Appeals to the arbitration committee take four weeks, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee. The process seems dauntingly complicated anyway, so I won't bother.

Let Cirt celebrate his victory - a potential opponent silenced. (And no, I do not sympathize with Scientology, I just dislike Cirt's attempts to keep total control over the subject on wikipedia. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are for any faith with any wacko tenets.)

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 29th March 2010, 12:37pm)

I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC).

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 29th March 2010, 7:37pm)

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 2:20pm)

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left?

Obviously that depends on who you ask, but I've always figured the number to be around 60 percent. But the Return on Desysopping Investment (RoDI) figure doesn't chart as a straight line, it's more of a steep hockey-stick curve (to borrow a term from the GW debate). That is to say, if you desysop the worst 1 percent, which is only about 20 people, you'll probably solve 50 percent of your admin-related problems (ARPs); if you desysop the worst 5 percent you'll solve 70 percent of ARPs; the worst 10 percent and you'll solve 80 percent of ARPs, and so on.

I could put together a graphic if that would help, but you get the general idea. I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC). It still wouldn't be a proper encyclopedia of course, and you'd still have content-related issues, but those things are probably inevitable.

My view towards administrators is that their purpose is to administer floggings to the wiki-serfs (editors), thereby maintaining a semblance of order, and suppressing signs of rebellion. From that point of view, the better they are as administrators the worse they are.

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 1:43pm)

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

And you keep hanging around the cult, why exactly?

If you desire floggings, I know a dominatrix who'll do a proper job.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 29th March 2010, 3:03pm)

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

Are you kidding? Have you watched how they turn on someone once it becomes obvious that they're going to be thrown out of the treehouse? Those monthly ritual desysoppings would turn into some sort of weird Saturnalia ritual or something, with massive scheming behind the scenes jockeying for who's going to get the whack this month.

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th March 2010, 2:07am)

QUOTE(Kwork @ Mon 29th March 2010, 1:43pm)

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

And you keep hanging around the cult, why exactly?

Virtually none of my time goes into anything related to WP, including the few posts I make to this list.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 30th March 2010, 12:50am)

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

I have such a man-crush on Boston Rob.

Posted by: HRIP7

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 30th March 2010, 12:50am)

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

Guilty. Well, formerly guilty. But I didn't stop because I saw the light, so much as because I didn't have cable for a long time, and then I had commitments Thursday evenings, and I just never fell back into the habit. But I'm still guilty of the thoughtcrime, at least.

(In my defense, everybody who knows me finds my affection for Survivor to be highly uncharacteristic.)

Edit: Oh, and Kelly's completely right about the effect that a monthly desysopping quota would have; if you've read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, you should have a pretty good idea of what they'd look like.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 31st March 2010, 7:10am)

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

I do not agree. Cirt's article is basically a catalogue of the media coverage of the Australian senator's after-business speech. Turkish and Romanian newspapers are quoted to inflate the number of links. But curiously, Cirt does not give a link to the Hansard with the verbatim record of what Xenohon said. That reference would have made most of the rest unnecessary - which is not what Cirt wants.

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

Someone filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D), and the main reason that people give for keeping it is the enormous number of links. Cirt knows how to to that, with clusters of media references that are not at all independent from eachother.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 31st March 2010, 10:28am)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 31st March 2010, 7:10am)

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

I do not agree. Cirt's article is basically a catalogue of the media coverage of the Australian senator's after-business speech. Turkish and Romanian newspapers are quoted to inflate the number of links. But curiously, Cirt does not give a link to the Hansard with the verbatim record of what Xenohon said. That reference would have made most of the rest unnecessary - which is not what Cirt wants.

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

Someone filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D), and the main reason that people give for keeping it is the enormous number of links. Cirt knows how to to that, with clusters of media references that are not at all independent from eachother.

Cirt certainly knows how to make a thin smattering of sources go a long way, sometimes stretching them almost to breaking point in the process.

If you leaf through the beginning of this thread, A Horse with No Name gave a few good examples where Cirt seemed to have used practically every last source available to make a vigorous article on an obscure topic.

But the Aaron Saxton BLP now does have biographical data; it's no longer just a coatrack, and Cirt has explained for example that the Sea Org that Saxton belonged to, described in one source as "Scientology's senior management", actually comprises several thousand people.

You know and I know that Cirt only uploaded the videos and wrote the article in order to maximise the exposure these youtube videos will get. But I still admire the Wikipedian craftsmanship (in research and writing, that is; I don't endorse Cirt's methods of conflict resolution). Cirt was prepared to put in the work to make the article acceptable, by Wikipedia criteria, so good luck to her.

That these criteria produce a Wikipedia with strange priorities is inherent in the basic concept that anyone should be able to write about whatever they want, as long as there is coverage in reliable sources. It's why we have wonderfully detailed articles about Pokemons and Scientology spoofs, and a crap article on a Nobel Prize winner like Doris Lessing (T-H-L-K-D).

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 31st March 2010, 6:20am)

Edit: Oh, and Kelly's completely right about the effect that a monthly desysopping quota would have; if you've read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, you should have a pretty good idea of what they'd look like.

The committee's track record has been only slightly better than random selection.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 30th March 2010, 8:05am)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 30th March 2010, 12:50am)

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

I have such a man-crush on Boston Rob.

Yeah, don't insult Survivor by comparing it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is like survivor with 70% of editors playing the role of "Evil Russell", and 15% (or whatever % admins compromise) scrambling to play the Probst role.

Decent people "win" on Survivor more often then they do on Wikipedia.

Posted by: chrisoff

Who is Durova like on Survivor?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 31st March 2010, 7:19am)

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

FYI, today he started a http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free-use_Scientology-related_video_project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Did we ever find out why he's so anti-CoS? I mean, most people are anti-CoS to some extent, which is good, but this guy really goes all-out!

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:46am)

FYI, today he started a http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free-use_Scientology-related_video_project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Interesting. A very transparent move to secure that these videos are "in project scope" according to the rules on Commons.

Cirt has now got me blocked for a month on Commons, with support from Cuerden and Durova (nice to see that they patched up their quarrel), and from volunteer coordinator Bastique. They are putting pressure on admins that are inclined to lift the block.

Ah well, Commons has become just as bad as the rest of the wikipedia.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Mon 5th April 2010, 12:10pm)

Who is Durova like on Survivor?

I like to use a simple car analogy...

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:23am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 11th April 2010, 2:46am)

FYI, today he started a http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free-use_Scientology-related_video_project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Interesting. A very transparent move to secure that these videos are "in project scope" according to the rules on Commons.

Cirt has now got me blocked for a month on Commons, with support from Cuerden and Durova (nice to see that they patched up their quarrel), and from volunteer coordinator Bastique. They are putting pressure on admins that are inclined to lift the block.

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37518770#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper.

Interesting Wikiversity project. I note Cirt http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Free-use_Scientology-related_video_project&action=historysubmit&diff=558403&oldid=558328 the Ranch School video that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mace-Kingsley_Ranch_School from that Wikipedia article.

Cirt clearly sees it as her mission to turn Commons into a public-domain version of http://www.xenutv.com). And in principle there is nothing wrong with that, or with writing project content that makes use of these materials. It would just be nice if Cirt could do it without shouting "harassment" when Pieter nominates her copyright violations in Commons for deletion.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 11th April 2010, 3:50pm)

Interesting Wikiversity project. I note Cirt http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Free-use_Scientology-related_video_project&action=historysubmit&diff=558403&oldid=558328 the Ranch School video that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mace-Kingsley_Ranch_School from that Wikipedia article.

Cirt clearly sees it as her mission to turn Commons into a public-domain version of http://www.xenutv.com). And in principle there is nothing wrong with that, or with writing project content that makes use of these materials.

I have only looked at a small fraction of all that video. A large part of it seems rather personal, and contains allegations about private persons. I do not think that wikipedia should be a megaphone for broadcasting dirt. What is next? former choir boys accusing their priests?

There is video there that shows anti-cult activists heckling and harassing adherents of Scientology. My impression as an outsider is that it reflects badly on the rabid activists. But one can also argue that its presence on commons makes wikipedia an accomplice in the harassment. Apparently all this has the backing of the Office.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 11th April 2010, 5:05pm)

There is video there that shows anti-cult activists heckling and harassing adherents of Scientology. My impression as an outsider is that it reflects badly on the rabid activists. But one can also argue that its presence on commons makes wikipedia an accomplice in the harassment. Apparently all this has the backing of the Office.

That would explain a lot.

But what is the evidence? Apart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Royal_Oak_bootstrap_meet.jpg, that is.

Posted by: HRIP7

There is of course another aspect to these compilations of videos by disgruntled ex-Scientologists. It's like having a page on the institution of marriage, filled exclusively with video testimonies from people who have just gone through a bitter divorce. With nothing from honeymooners, and nothing from the people who have been happily married for 50 years. It's simply not a neutral portrayal.

And if "the Office" is indeed backing this, then they are engaged in the same thing that editors get sanctioned for by arbcom -- using the site for advocacy.

Posted by: Moulton

Wow, Gerard really is wearing a T-Shirt mocking Scientology.

And http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/demo/971205-fun.html.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:50am)

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37518770#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop. However, what about Cirt? I see certain editors/admins yelling at Pieter that he should stop it, but Cirt kept putting up more and more complaints about Pieter. It was obvious from the beginning that both editors should be told to stop, maybe even be short-blocked if they didn't.

And then, the elephant in the living room. Pay no attention to this elephant. An admin blocks Pieter for the second time, wheel-warring. Clearly involved, shouldn't have touched Pieter with tools. Matter already under discussion. No consensus.

This should be open and shut. The admin's privileges should be suspended until the admin provides the community with satisfactory assurances that it won't happen again.

There is no ArbComm there, so it should be done by a bureaucrat on his or her own neutral judgment, after a discussion. And possibly pending discussion, as a "suspension."

I've not advocated desysopping for making a mistake. I've pointed out, though, that refusal or inability to acknowledge recusal failure maintains an ongoing hazard, and failing to address this creates and maintains an impression of arbitrary, biased, and capricious administration.

Not that I expect it to change. I'm really interested, now, in this stuff because of possible future utility.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 11th April 2010, 8:07pm)

There is of course another aspect to these compilations of videos by disgruntled ex-Scientologists. It's like having a page on the institution of marriage, filled exclusively with video testimonies from people who have just gone through a bitter divorce. With nothing from honeymooners, and nothing from the people who have been happily married for 50 years. It's simply not a neutral portrayal.

I guess they could balance it with the following video.

This guy seems thrilled to death about both scientology and marriage.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 10:58pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:50am)

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37518770#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop. However, what about Cirt? I see certain editors/admins yelling at Pieter that he should stop it, but Cirt kept putting up more and more complaints about Pieter. It was obvious from the beginning that both editors should be told to stop, maybe even be short-blocked if they didn't.

4 out of the 6 deletion requests that Cirt complained about at the beginning of the thread, entitled "Behavior by User:Pieter Kuiper", resulted in deletions because Cirt's license tags turned out to be misleading. 5 other files that Pieter nominated have also been deleted by closing admins for the same reason. That seems a pretty good hit rate. So why should Pieter have stopped? Having found those, he would have had good reason to believe he'd find more. And probably would have.

So Pieter identified copyvios uploaded by Cirt. The result is that Cirt's files got deleted, and Pieter got blocked for a month.

Go figure.

Posted by: HRIP7

I've just realised that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShakataGaNai actually http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=&page=User:Pieter+Kuiper&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Pieter, for a month, at 17:40 on 7 April, 9 minutes after Pieter http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Northern_MN_-_083.jpg&oldid=37385050 some of ShakataGaNai's files for deletion.

Two days later, the files concerned were http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Northern_MN_-_083.jpg as "obvious" copyvios.

What kind of place is this, where admins get to block editors for a month, with impunity, if they nominate the admin's copyvios?

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 11th April 2010, 11:58pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 11th April 2010, 9:50am)

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37518770#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop.

I was well aware that I needed to stop if I needed the "editing privileges" on Commons.

If not before, I was well aware that I ought to adopt the submissive posture when VOLCO Cary Bass made statements like http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=37418219. And I know very well that I ought to have paid intermediaries like Finnrind at least a token of respect or a token of remorse. The guy at the Office making http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr&diff=prev&oldid=37447057 has a chilling effect on lower-ranking admins; they cannot overturn a block that has been endorsed by the Office without risking their status. That is what I had learned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4&view=findpost&p=228898.

But I wanted to be able to treat Cirt and other admins just like anybody else whose uploads show a pattern of not understanding copyright.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Mon 12th April 2010, 4:59pm)

If not before, I was well aware that I ought to adopt the submissive posture when VOLCO Cary Bass made statements like http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=37418219. And I know very well that I ought to have paid intermediaries like Finnrind at least a token of respect or a token of remorse. The guy at the Office making http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr&diff=prev&oldid=37447057 has a chilling effect on lower-ranking admins; they cannot overturn a block that has been endorsed by the Office without risking their status. That is what I had learned http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4&view=findpost&p=228898.

But I wanted to be able to treat Cirt and other admins just like anybody else whose uploads show a pattern of not understanding copyright.

You forgot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MGodwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf in Cirt's support, arguing

QUOTE

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it? Perhaps it's payback for the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_Rights&oldid=332631151 Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

So both the Foundation volunteer coordinator and the Foundation lawyer took the trouble to come to Cirt's aid. For the connection between Godwin and long-time anti-Scientology activist Gerard, see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/. According to The Register, at least,

QUOTE

David Gerard is still listed on the Wikimedia Foundation website as the encyclopedia's UK press contact, and he has for years been part of the site's inner-circle.

It's plausible that there might be a sort of backroom understanding between such Foundation luminaries and Cirt's Scientology crusade. It would explain Cirt's brazen cockiness in going after inconvenient users. She knows nothing can happen to her.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:23pm)

You forgot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MGodwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf in Cirt's support, arguing

QUOTE

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

QUOTE

Perhaps it's payback for the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_Rights&oldid=332631151 Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

That text is sycophancy exemplified.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:27pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:23pm)

You forgot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MGodwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf in Cirt's support, arguing

QUOTE

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

Well, you have been unblocked by Kameraad Pjotr. I have declined Durova's request to urge you to make gestures and "disengage from the conflict". I think it is up to the other side to make gestures of reconciliation to you.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 1:23pm)

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it? Perhaps it's payback for the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_Rights&oldid=332631151 Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

It's the usual copyright line for content posted by administrators. Particularly if there's logrolling involved!

As for the article about Godwin's book, I noticed that it contains this sentence:

QUOTE

Godwin's motivation is to make sure that the Internet is kept safe from government actions which have the potential to decrease freedom of speech.

But we know that can't be true, because Godwin works for the Wikimedia Foundation. His primary professional goal must therefore be to ensure that government intervention in internet-related affairs happens ASAP, and is as strict and onerous as possible. Otherwise, he'd be working for a responsible organization.

Still, I wish this incident didn't involve Scientology... I mean, sure, the real test of a fair system is how it attempts to deal fairly with the worst elements of society, but why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 12th April 2010, 10:37pm)

why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

Little old ladies wanting to upload pictures from the family album are usually given a very hard time. But they do not complain about harassment at notice boards.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 9:18pm)

Well, you have been unblocked by Kameraad Pjotr.

Foundation employee Cary Bass http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr&action=historysubmit&diff=37563757&oldid=37481749 Pjotr with a desysop for the unblock. He http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr&action=historysubmit&diff=37564726&oldid=37564617 seems to have thought better of it.

The presence of a Wikipedia arbitrator in the noticeboard discussion, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37569794#Unblocked_Pieter_Kuiper, may have helped.

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 12th April 2010, 9:37pm)

Still, I wish this incident didn't involve Scientology... I mean, sure, the real test of a fair system is how it attempts to deal fairly with the worst elements of society, but why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

The best I can offer for an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:27pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 8:23pm)

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

This line of reasoning, that "there is no problem -- the Foundation can always take it down if someone complains", wouldn't go down well with people like MoonriddengirlÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) at Wikipedia, who are concerned with the interests of downstream users of free Wikipedia material.

If someone prints a book, say, using an image wrongly marked as public domain in Commons, and the copyright owner subsequently complains, it is easy for WMF to remove the offending file. It is far more difficult and costly for the downstream user to reprint their publication, sans the copyright violation.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:23pm)

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 13th April 2010, 6:46pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:23pm)

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

Linky?.....

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th April 2010, 2:52am)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 13th April 2010, 6:46pm)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:23pm)

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

Linky?.....

Jewish, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews_for_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=54318776 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Eichmann&diff=prev&oldid=54959763. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=smee+%22woman+with+a+mission%22&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

The "I am a victim of harassment" strategy is more of a female play. So is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ER_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=53972025, or the cheery efforts to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Value_investing&diff=prev&oldid=56061686.

The name "Smeelgova" is as female as "Curt Wilhelm vonSavage" is male. The first was the original account name; the second, the name she used after her 3-month disappearance -- following real-life harassment, according to WikiWhistle.

Let's bear the latter in mind, here -- no outing of addresses and the like, please. She deserves a kick up the butt sometimes, but not to have her life ruined.

Posted by: chrisoff

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 14th April 2010, 6:15pm)

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20302. The question as to whether Cirt is male or female remains unsettled, since (as far as I know) nobody has matched a real-life identity up with Cirt's login ID. However, the predominant opinion appears to be that Cirt is female.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:23pm)

You forgot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MGodwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf in Cirt's support, arguing

QUOTE

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

Gee! This strikes me as failing the "red flag test" of the OCILA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Red_Flags). If Commons is "cognizant" of a copyright claim, they just can't keep it around and await a DMCA notice -- they have to take action on their own in order to protect their own "safe harbor".

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 15th April 2010, 12:15am)

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

Cirt has acknowledged several times that her prior account was Smee[lgova] (most recently http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37680758#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper). Actually, SmeeÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) redirects to CirtÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) today; she created a redirect for it recently.
She changed her account name from Smeelgova to Smee some time in 2007, then stopped editing, came back as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage three months later, when the 2007 Scientology arbitration had ended, and renamed that account to Cirt some time after that. The rest is history.

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 15th April 2010, 11:33am)

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 12th April 2010, 6:23pm)

You forgot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MGodwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2004_Landmark_v_Ross_answer.pdf in Cirt's support, arguing

QUOTE

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

Gee! This strikes me as failing the "red flag test" of the OCILA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Red_Flags). If Commons is "cognizant" of a copyright claim, they just can't keep it around and await a DMCA notice -- they have to take action on their own in order to protect their own "safe harbor".

I think this is why Pieter said that nobody on Commons usually cares much about what Mike Godwin says.

Posted by: chrisoff

QUOTE

The "I am a victim of harassment" strategy is more of a female play. So is complaining about ER plot lines, or the cheery efforts to socialise.

Interesting. I haven't notice these attributes in today's Cirt. Seems like a guy. Is Cirt's aggression a female play?

Posted by: HRIP7

Further to the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29454&hl=, OrderinchaosÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) has now weighed in in Cirt's support at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=360412742#Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.

People familiar with this present thread will remember that Orderinchaos did his best to help Cirt get sanctions against Pieter Kuiper, in two en:WP Arbitration Enforcement threads, and in the mammoth http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37879236#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper (Pieter was eventually unblocked). Is he following Cirt around?

Given that Cirt's regulars are turning up in support (Durova next?), I weighed in as well. Result? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466&action=historysubmit&diff=360409066&oldid=360078906

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 6th May 2010, 12:33am)

Further to the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29454&hl=, OrderinchaosÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) has now weighed in in Cirt's support at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=360412742#Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.

People familiar with this present thread will remember that Orderinchaos did his best to help Cirt get sanctions against Pieter Kuiper, in two en:WP Arbitration Enforcement threads, and in the mammoth http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=37879236#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper (Pieter was eventually unblocked). Is he following Cirt around?

Given that Cirt's regulars are turning up in support (Durova next?), I weighed in as well. Result? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466&action=historysubmit&diff=360409066&oldid=360078906

HRIP7, I put this on another thread, but I will repeat the same question here also, but this time directed specifically at you.

I think that I am fairly familiar with Wikipedia and its problems, but the point of this is lost on me. Could you explain what it is that makes you think Cirt any worse than any other administrator (Gatoclass for example), or why you think Pieter Kuiper is better than any other user who is involved on one side in Wikipedia's I/P disputes? (I noticed that you got a wiki-lawering barnstar from Kuiper that you have on your user page.)

Posted by: Orderinchaos

I think anyone who knows me would accept that I do nobody's bidding but my own. I accept that some will not agree with what I do (or even anything I do) on Wikipedia, but they will at least accept that I don't take the place seriously enough to fight others' battles. It's a waste of time and energy, and I've got plenty of offline stuff to spend that on these days.

What happened is very simple. I am an Australian politics editor and admin. A person (Pieter) started acting from a very strong POV or agenda within that space, just days after I'd managed to clear out a political party sockfarm in the beginning stages of an election year in Australia. I decided I was going to take a hard line against agendas, but to do so, needed to research to figure out where this was coming from. In doing so, I found a bunch of activity on two projects (including two debates) and substantial block logs there and elsewhere which showed form.

I was initially unwilling to intervene beyond simple debate participation because I had had a runin with Cirt in November last year. Oddly, we'd had our runin over exactly the same part of Australian politics, I felt a reliable if controversial Australian editor had been blocked unfairly, and I unblocked him. Cirt objected to this action on my part and ended up filing a conduct RfC against me demanding I be desysopped. It was later withdrawn.

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology, and this was in direct violation of the ArbCom case as well as various WP policies on neutrality. When he was prevented from advancing the cause, he set out on an all-out kamikaze mission to destroy his opponent in both projects. Hence, the AEs and my support of those, and the related Commons case involving his behaviour there.

Once the AE was concluded, I considered that matter settled - I have nothing against Pieter personally, and he has stopped bothering the Australian project, so I'm happy. I actually ended up coming down on Pieter's side in a dispute he was having with Physchim62 on a science-related dispute either one or two days after the AE had passed, primarily because on that occasion he was entirely right.

You will find that those (Nov 09 and the en/commons debacle) are the only two occasions prior to April 2010 in which Cirt and I had been in the same place at the same time. The DYK was a coincidence where I'd been told about the debate involving Mohammed by another admin, skim read it, offered an opinion, and only later realised that Cirt was involved.

I broadly agree with Kwork and several others above on the general situation.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:58pm)

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 6th May 2010, 4:33pm)

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:58pm)

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. CosÃ¬ Ã¨ la vita.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Kwork @ Thu 6th May 2010, 7:07pm)

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. CosÃ¬ Ã¨ la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

Posted by: Kwork

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:18pm)

QUOTE(Kwork @ Thu 6th May 2010, 7:07pm)

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. CosÃ¬ Ã¨ la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

Sorry, but my dealings with you on Commons makes me doubt that the problem is all on one side. But that is not to say that Cirt is better than other Wikipedia administrators. However, I suspect that you would find no faults in an administrator who protected your editing goals, even if he/she was actually far more worse an administrator than Cirt.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 6th May 2010, 9:33am)

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Thu 6th May 2010, 5:58pm)

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

If you're "persistant and didn't budge," in defense of Scientology, you're not going to get much sympathy on WR. There aren't too many systems of believe nuttier than the one that runs WP, but Scientology qualifies.

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 6th May 2010, 10:18am)

QUOTE(Kwork @ Thu 6th May 2010, 7:07pm)

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. CosÃ¬ Ã¨ la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#March_2010. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

Such is life for anything controlled by Scientologists. Do you think THEY believe in "freedom of speech"? They do not-- they believe in barratry to destroy critics. I've seen them do it to a friend of mine, and that policy is real, not some idea I got out of rumor or the newspapers.

So if you have anything to do with defending Scientology, Pieter, I have only one message for you: Fuck You.

Posted by: Giano

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 22nd December 2009, 6:09pm)

Probably just someone who is living off of unearned income (trust fund, settlement annuity, inheritance, or some sort of public pension). We see a lot of that on Wikipedia: socially marginal individuals who are not required to work due to their circumstances, and who fill their otherwise meaningless lives with social maneuvering in the WikiSphere. Many of them have deeply held, often strange, belief systems which they use Wikipedia to express.

Not that this necessarily describes Cirt. But it might.

Unless of course editing from the UK. There, numerous graduates, with useless degrees created to manipulate the short term unemployment figures, are now, having left university "unemployed" and paid to stay at home with enough money to run their laptops, but sadly not enough to go out and socialise. They have the natural ability to be a top class plumber or welder but have been given the aspirations to be a international lawyer, so there they sit, degree in hand and no job, but just enough money/free internet access to edit Wikipedia.

Giacomo

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 6th May 2010, 1:40pm)

So if you have anything to do with defending Scientology, Pieter, I have only one message for you...

Well, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27899&view=findpost&p=229082, FWIW.

I believe there are a few WR members who are at least somewhat sympathetic towards Scientology as a quasi-religion, in a "live and let live" sort of way - Mr. HRIP7 probably being the clearest example IMO (he too says he's not a Scientologist; I think he states on his WP user page that he was a member of some sort of Indian spiritual organization at one point, though AFAIK Cirt and others consider him to be an active cult member.)

I personally don't like the Scientologists one little tiny bit, but y'know, if you're going to claim to be a "neutral encyclopedia," then sometimes you have to take the bad with the good - if only to avoid the appearance of egregious bias or even outright persecution (though strictly of the online variety in this case, of course). I actually felt that WP was doing a reasonable job of toeing that line during most of the 2007-2008 period, but that may have been more due to the pressure of an all-out CoS wiki-propaganda campaign than anything the WP Faithful were doing... Anyway, Mr. Cirt seems to be trying to change that, and has been for some time.

Posted by: HRIP7

Jimbo seems to have woken up to the fact that Cirt is a POV pusher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day&oldid=364879215#Isn.27t_the_entire_gallery_original_research.3F at Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, one of Cirt's pet projects these last few weeks.

Related http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Draw_Muhammad_Day_video_by_AwesomeSauceUK.ogv#File:Draw_Muhammad_Day_video_by_AwesomeSauceUK.ogv discussion.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 29th May 2010, 7:15pm)

Jimbo seems to have woken up to the fact that Cirt is a POV pusher ...

A man asleep in a dream dreams he has woken up ... Wikipedia: the random collection of non-notable porn pictures taken from flickr.

It will always be easier to remove a gallery of Mohammeds from the Wikipedia than a fraction of the porn ... even the Jihadists could not manage that.

I guess what we need is a "Make Fake Porn Pictures of Mohammed on the Wikipedia" Day.

QUOTE

Isn't the entire gallery original research?

I believe the entire gallery should be omitted from the article as original research. There is nothing to it other than a random collection of non-notable drawings from flickr. I think any drawings chosen for inclusion in the article should be notable in some way - i.e. at a bare minimum mentioned in a news report about this topic, created for this event by a notable artist, etc. Without that, the images add nothing encyclopedic to the article, but are rather just exactly what they are: non-notable drawings from flickr.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us pose a similar query: Is the selection of which pictures to use for the article Masturbation original research? -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is not a good example, as it brings up a wide range of unrelated issues, in both directions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's avoid the issue.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 31st May 2010, 2:22am)

QUOTE

I think that is not a good example, as it brings up a wide range of unrelated issues, in both directions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's avoid the issue.

Well, you have a point, though to his credit, Jimbo tried his best to clean up the "random collection of non-notable porn pictures taken from flickr" â€“ at some cost to himself, and with some moderate degree of success. For example, the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_objects is much impoverished. No more home-made photos of women sticking various items of coloured plastic up their vagina in sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day&oldid=365152849#Please_do_not_remove_videos, Greg LÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) sparred quite nicely with Cirt on the EDMD talk page:

QUOTE

Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, Cirt. Your posting messages here on this talk page with copious â€œpleasesâ€ and your conclusory â€œThanksâ€ (as in â€˜Thank you so very much for understanding the law I just laid downâ€™) establishes only what you want. It does not establish what is â€œrightâ€ nor does it establish what is truly a consensus. Everything here, including whether a muted video (something that really smacks of â€œcensorshipâ€) being in the gallery best serves this article is an issue that remains open for discussion so that a true consensus can be properly determined. Please understand that. Greg L (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that consensus is important. Also important not to unilaterally remove material from the article, as has been done by Greg L (talk Â· contribs). It is possible that Greg L (talk Â· contribs) might benefit from a break from this article.

-- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, please leave your childish, smarty-pants attitude out of this. I simply agree with Martin H. here; fully agree with him. That video had no place being here in the first place and you should have just listened to him and deleted it instead of pushing back and engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. The compromise (mute the narration even though the fellow is facing the camera and his mouth is moving) looked utterly absurd. My proposed remedy (donâ€™t head down the slippery slope of having any videos for a variety of stated reasons) was probably too broad of a brush stroke. The latest solution (keep the stop-action-like video but douche the seven-minute-long video of the *clever* guy and his censored-out witticisms) seems perfectly satisfactory to me. Lighten up the reigns a bit here on this article fella. What Martin H. was saying seemed to have offended your first instincts and sensibilities over â€œcensorship.â€ The trouble is, Martin H.â€™s instincts were spot-on correct. The simple fact is that not everyoneâ€™s contributions to Wikipedia are good and encyclopedic and deleting crap is not â€œcensorshipâ€; thatâ€™s sort of a Wellâ€¦ Duh thing everyone else seems to understand. Greg L (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please avoid a lack of civility as you have displayed, referring to other editors as "thoroughly brain-damaged". Your level of emotional responses appear to be increasing. Perhaps you would benefit from a break from this article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I wrote engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. I was criticizing the product of not listening to Martin H. and your reverting his deletion of that improper video that had no place ever being here. He was right and you were wrong. The resulting compromise (because you behave as if you WP:OWN this article) was an idiotic solution. I wasnâ€™t saying you were brain damaged. And desist please, with your childish â€œyou need to take a breakâ€ wiki-crap; it is transparent posturing and really amounts to nothing more than WP:BAIT. I canâ€™t help if you chafe at someone stepping into what you think is your sandbox. If you have something legitimate to say, the say it, but cut the bull, please. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And lots more in that vein all through that talk page. For once, Cirt actually seemed to display some capacity for insight and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day&oldid=365152849#Apology. Eventually.

Though I'd still say there is a 50:50 chance that Cirt will try to get the boot in on Greg L at the next best opportunity, just like s/he tried with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Xeno_2.

Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Cirt _ What is Cirt's Deal?

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Nerd

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: Nerd

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Nerd

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: Cedric

Posted by: The Joy

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Posted by: Krimpet

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Random832

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Posted by: Milton Roe

Posted by: SirFozzie

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: Krimpet

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: Cla68

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Posted by: Friday

Posted by: Milton Roe

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Nerd

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: Milton Roe

Posted by: wikiwhistle

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: rockyBarton

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Nerd

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Posted by: Lar

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Posted by: Lar

Posted by: chrisoff

Posted by: pietkuip

Posted by: Killiondude

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: chrisoff

Posted by: pietkuip

Posted by: Mathsci

Posted by: pietkuip

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: pietkuip

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: HRIP7