Let's check in on the reformed Cirt Options

[Jagärdu]

As much as Cirt's overt anti-Scientology POV-pushing galls me, I'm not sure that outing them is a great idea if those stories about the CoS harassing their enemies are to be believed.

Well, I don't think anyone has outed anyone else here. Just a bunch of idle speculation. Personally I don't think Cirt is an account utilized by any of the names mentioned in the above thread. That it might be shared between two or more anti-cult activists is all I was suggesting. As pointed out by tarantino Tanaatas is clearly unrelated.

Also, I was under the impression that Cirt had already been threatened off-wiki (implying that someone had figured out who he was) and that this was why the name change happened in the first place. Though clearly anyone who wanted to know would know that Cirt = Smee so I'm not sure what the point was. I've always felt that the name disguise was just gaming the system for a clean start from an unclean account, but then again I've never been privy to any behind the scenes information about this.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Sat 12th February 2011, 6:10pm

[Lar]

As much as Cirt's overt anti-Scientology POV-pushing galls me, I'm not sure that outing them is a great idea if those stories about the CoS harassing their enemies are to be believed.

Goes without saying that I agree. Nevertheless I said it anyway. What a dick I am.

[Milton Roe]

the confusion about Smee is a man or a woman and about lengthy edit sessions is self explained , as she says, "she and her husband, Noel, left their associations with est, The Hunger Project and Sterling Institute and began a personal search for information to aid their recovery process" A husband and wife editing team.

You're saying that Cirt is Noel Giambalvo, or rather both Noel and Carol Giambalvo...? I don't think so. Cirt might be highly familiar with the Giambalvos or even know them personally, but the Giambalvos themselves just don't fit the profile. For one thing, they would realize after a few weeks of Wikipedia activity that they were becoming part of a cult themselves, and get the hell out!

Anyway, interesting speculation, and I hope you don't take my dismissal of it personally. There just has to be another explanation, though like I say you may very well be on the right track (FWIW).

This is most likely Carol Giambalvo on Wikipedia. Interestingly, Cirt (as Smee) is the only editor to have edited her user page - here. There is definitely a familiarity there that extends beyond the Wiki.

Agreed, though I doubt very much they are the same person. Smee created the Carol Giambalvo bio (she's a former self-described Erhard cultist) with a lot of refs and info. THEN Smee (as you say) created both Affcarol's userpage AND talk page (both as single edits, which still stand). This was to allow Affcarol (T-C-L-K-R-D) to edit Carol Giambalvo's bio, for Affcarol is a SPA. Clearly, as has been suggested, Affcarol is Carol Giambalvo herself. However, not Smee/Cirt. One has to look at the edits that Affcarol THEN added to her own BLP after Smee had done creating it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=59407142

A lot of stuff is modified or erased as being outdated. If Smee is using "Affcarol" as a sock account for this purpose, he/she is doing a brilliant job, and a LOT of work adding stuff that the real person then goes and updates. This also seems rather too distant a contact for a husband/wife.

Incidently, where did CoS come in? The Giambalvos got into cult deprogramming via Erhard/EST/Landmark, not CoS, so far as I can tell. Have they branched out subsequently?

As somebody who stands outside this battle, I'm always sourly amused when some people who get sucked into Landmark or CoS, then go on to run "cult awareness" networks from the refuge of Christianity. There do exist some very cult-like Christian groups (in the sense of being isolative, controlling, and involved in all aspects of members' personal lives). And there exist people who seem to need this, like the submissives in dom/sub roles in S&M organizations. In a sense, like so many mental disorders, these is a problem of arrested development-- of children who in one way, never grew up and became full adults.

Some people not only CAN'T think for themselves, they actually don't WANT to think for themselves. It scares them. Causes PTSD and anxiety. If you take these people out of their regimented cult/fundamentalist deeply-organization-controlled lives, even the military/police/Catholic Church, their eyes bulge out and they flop about like fish brought up from the pressurized depths of the ocean. (Hey, Ottava? Isn't that swim bladder bulging out through your mouth sort of uncomfortable?)

One interesting thing is that many very-controlling organizations (think of the Amish or various flavors of Orthodox Jews) seem to exist, in part, to keep OCD people from going crazy. How? By giving them something to do. LOTS of rituals and repetitious work. When such people decompress, they need something ELSE to do. And too often, what they find these days, is a new life editing Wikipedia... And we see some of that in the cult-anticult wars on WP.

Anyway, Cirt/Smee's assistance (indeed handholding) to allow and protect a SPA account in their quest to edit their own bio on WP, is an outstanding example of organizational hypocrisy. Not everybody gets to do that.

[EricBarbour]

Some people not only CAN'T think for themselves, they actually don't WANT to think for themselves. It scares them. Causes PTSD and anxiety. If you take these people out of their regimented cult/fundamentalist deeply-organization-controlled lives, even the military/police/Catholic Church, their eyes bulge out and they flop about like fish brought up from the pressurized depths of the ocean. (Hey, Ottava? Isn't that swim bladder bulging out through your mouth sort of uncomfortable?)

Well put. The idea that some people are "born to be slaves" goes all the way back to Aristotle, but usually gets twisted by racial bigots. (Where is William Shockley when we need to abuse him?) But perhaps there is always a percentage of the population, of whatever racial makeup, that needs to belong to a social group, one that forces a false reality down their throats. Without a false reality, they go mad.

Wikipedia, I suspect, will someday be accused of being cultic in its basic nature. The actual operation of it is a hostile and erratic mess, but the Jimbo-luv and "positive energy" that appears whenever the word "Wikipedia" is uttered in mixed nerd company is remarkably similar to the blind rage that Scientologists show when defending Hubbard and Miscavige from their critics. Or Erhard fans (who still exist, though in small numbers), or TM fans, etc.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As much as Cirt's overt anti-Scientology POV-pushing galls me, I'm not sure that outing them is a great idea if those stories about the CoS harassing their enemies are to be believed.

Goes without saying that I agree. Nevertheless I said it anyway. What a dick I am.

we at the Program and Catering Committee have no intention of outing the victorious contestant. We simply need to know whether we ought to refer to the victor as "he", "she", "them", or "it".

[Wikicrusher2]

As much as Cirt's overt anti-Scientology POV-pushing galls me, I'm not sure that outing them is a great idea if those stories about the CoS harassing their enemies are to be believed.

Goes without saying that I agree. Nevertheless I said it anyway. What a dick I am.

we at the Program and Catering Committee have no intention of outing the victorious contestant. We simply need to know whether we ought to refer to the victor as "he", "she", "them", or "it".

You must not have remembered this thread after posting in it (or just felt sullied after the impression, Krusty, as you suggested you did). By the voice it seems pretty obvious that Cirt, being the operator of the account that uploaded the files, is male (unless he got someone else to do it). Either way, Tarantino has previously stated on this board that Cirt was a guy, and his research is usually quite trustworthy.

For the record, I personally agree that it's not useful to out Cirt, and it certainly doesn't contribute to any criticism of his actions on Wikipedia. Add to that Scientology's record of interaction with its critics being rather, shall I say, dubious, sometimes crossing the line into harassment. Goodness knows, we don't want that happening to Cirt, even if WR is largely not fond of him and/or thinks he is obsessing too much. I'd argue that his opinions of Scientology are correct, and he might have even been a victim of a cult at one time (Erhard's?), so it would be best to try not to become as obsessed over his WP behavior as he is about Scientology. Nevertheless, it seems that he is being overly assertive on labeling people as Scientologists when their connection is not that strong, and the WR threads about this are not unfairly targeting Cirt, IMO.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You must not have remembered this thread after posting in it (or just felt sullied after the impression, Krusty, as you suggested you did). By the voice it seems pretty obvious that Cirt, being the operator of the account that uploaded the files, is male (unless he got someone else to do it). Either way, Tarantino has previously stated on this board that Cirt was a guy, and his research is usually quite trustworthy.

I'm with you on that. And for the record, I too think that Scientology sucks. I have met some Scientologists that seemed like decent people, and once one of them persuaded me to read a book by L. Ron Hubbard. It was horrendous, basically putting forward an AI model of human cognition. Their epistemology is crude and soulless.

[Milton Roe]

You must not have remembered this thread after posting in it (or just felt sullied after the impression, Krusty, as you suggested you did). By the voice it seems pretty obvious that Cirt, being the operator of the account that uploaded the files, is male (unless he got someone else to do it). Either way, Tarantino has previously stated on this board that Cirt was a guy, and his research is usually quite trustworthy.

Why would a guy pick out a name like Smeelgova for themselves? If you know enough Russian to do the end, you're likely to do it right.

Besides, there was something about way SV was sucked into Smee and its hysterics about being in personal danger from the nasty CoS, and the way Cirt skillfully used that. If Cirt's a guy, let's just say he's not likely to win the Cojones de Laton.

[tarantino]

Why would a guy pick out a name like Smeelgova for themselves?

Why would a guy pick out a name like Rachel Brown?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._adminship/Cirt

It’s an honor to be the nominator of one of en:wiki’s most qualified candidates for RFA. Cirt is already an arbitrator at Wikinews, an administrator at Commons, and an OTRS volunteer. At Wikipedia he has contributed 11 featured articles, 26 good articles, 33 “Did you know” articles, 1 featured topic, and 11 featured portals (he’s the most prolific contributor of featured portals on this website). He has made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia. In connection with his OTRS work, cross-project deletion work, and his AFD work it makes sense for him to have the tools at this project too.

This post has been edited by tarantino: Sun 13th February 2011, 2:36am

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia, I suspect, will someday be accused of being cultic in its basic nature. The actual operation of it is a hostile and erratic mess, but the Jimbo-luv and "positive energy" that appears whenever the word "Wikipedia" is uttered in mixed nerd company is remarkably similar to the blind rage that Scientologists show when defending Hubbard and Miscavige from their critics. Or Erhard fans (who still exist, though in small numbers), or TM fans, etc.

I have been at Capricon 31 the past few days (it's local to me so attending is just the price of the badge and the gas to drive there). I got into a heated, drawn out argument with some random guy over Wikipedia in which most of the usual assertions were repeated by the wikidefender. I'm not even sure he was an editor, either; one of the interesting things about Wikipedia-love is that it seems to be held far more widely than merely those who are actively involved in the site.

Then again, I've run into this as well with respect to Disney. I revile Disney, but I've learned that to express this opinion in many contexts is a near-guarantee of a hostile response from someone in the audience. Apparently it's "just wrong" not to like Disney's animated films.

[Doc glasgow]

Wikipedia, I suspect, will someday be accused of being cultic in its basic nature. The actual operation of it is a hostile and erratic mess, but the Jimbo-luv and "positive energy" that appears whenever the word "Wikipedia" is uttered in mixed nerd company is remarkably similar to the blind rage that Scientologists show when defending Hubbard and Miscavige from their critics. Or Erhard fans (who still exist, though in small numbers), or TM fans, etc.

I have been at Capricon 31 the past few days (it's local to me so attending is just the price of the badge and the gas to drive there). I got into a heated, drawn out argument with some random guy over Wikipedia in which most of the usual assertions were repeated by the wikidefender. I'm not even sure he was an editor, either; one of the interesting things about Wikipedia-love is that it seems to be held far more widely than merely those who are actively involved in the site.

Then again, I've run into this as well with respect to Disney. I revile Disney, but I've learned that to express this opinion in many contexts is a near-guarantee of a hostile response from someone in the audience. Apparently it's "just wrong" not to like Disney's animated films.

Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money ---Walt Disney

Now, where have I heard that line before ......?

[EricBarbour]

I have been at Capricon 31 the past few days (it's local to me so attending is just the price of the badge and the gas to drive there). I got into a heated, drawn out argument with some random guy over Wikipedia in which most of the usual assertions were repeated by the wikidefender. I'm not even sure he was an editor, either; one of the interesting things about Wikipedia-love is that it seems to be held far more widely than merely those who are actively involved in the site.

There are few places better-suited to find guys of that variety than a science-fiction convention.

It's a major component of Wiki-luv: young men with aggressively antisocial tendencies, plus OCD.
Science fiction, fantasy and RPG fandom overlaps very strongly with it.
And no doubt, if you took the time to explain WP's problems to that guy at Capricon in detail,
with examples, he'd probably be just as horrified as Peter D's fellow academics are when he
shows them the harassment he gets when fixing philosophy articles.
Question is, who has that kind of time?

I still think a book, on paper and sold widely, will do more than all the explanation deliverable by
all the WR regulars, when it comes to counteracting the mass cultic Wiki-orgasm. I think it's
a product of general ignorance, rather than deliberate and willful deception.
As you keep saying, Jimbo is a remarkably poor dissembler. He's just been very lucky, so far.

Where were we? Oh yeah, Cirt......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 13th February 2011, 3:14am

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Then again, I've run into this as well with respect to Disney.

Do you think Jimbo will have his noggin cryogenically preserved?

[Somey]

we at the Program and Catering Committee have no intention of outing the victorious contestant. We simply need to know whether we ought to refer to the victor as "he", "she", "them", or "it".

You must not have remembered this thread after posting in it (or just felt sullied after the impression, Krusty, as you suggested you did). By the voice it seems pretty obvious that Cirt, being the operator of the account that uploaded the files, is male (unless he got someone else to do it). Either way, Tarantino has previously stated on this board that Cirt was a guy, and his research is usually quite trustworthy.

The issue at hand seems to be whether or not Mr. Cirt is a "them," as in two or more people. I have to say, this would certainly explain a few things, not least of which is Cirt's tendency to behave as though Cirt has no recollection of previous promises or agreements made by Cirt, and going off and doing things Cirt had previously agreed not to do as if those promises/agreements had never been made - chiefly, trying to tag people as "Scientologists" in their BLPs when they're clearly not, and of course, the spammy puff pieces like the Daryl Wine Bar article.

Obviously we see that sort of thing from Wikipedians all the time, so it's certainly not conclusive, but I think it's a plausible theory in this case... I mean, we've also seen Cirt behave in a rather male-like fashion (aggressive, nit-picky, arrogant) for a period of time, and then behave in a female-like fashion (careful, conciliatory, subtle) for a subsequent period of time, and then back again.

Single accounts used by multiple individuals are probably quite rare, but only because it's exceptionally difficult to attain the level of trust required between the people using the account (since any one of them could go off the reservation at any time and change the password without telling the others). But some sort of anti-cult organization could probably manage it... If the real-world consequences (outside of Wikiland) for any one person taking over the account are serious enough, then it's a much more feasible strategy - after all, more people mean more activity, which leads to adminship much sooner (and more easily).

[gomi]

Then again, I've run into this as well with respect to Disney.

Do you think Jimbo will have his noggin cryogenically preserved?

More likely a part of his anatomy somewhat below that.

[CharlotteWebb]

Single accounts used by multiple individuals are probably quite rare, but only because it's exceptionally difficult to attain the level of trust required between the people using the account (since any one of them could go off the reservation at any time and change the password without telling the others). But some sort of anti-cult organization could probably manage it... If the real-world consequences (outside of Wikiland) for any one person taking over the account are serious enough, then it's a much more feasible strategy - after all, more people mean more activity, which leads to adminship much sooner (and more easily).

Surely it would be more advantageous for two individuals to edit as two (or more) user-accounts than as one. But if this really is the prevailing theory, I'm surprised nobody nominated Cirt for Herschel's tag-team event.

[Detective]

Then again, I've run into this as well with respect to Disney.

Do you think Jimbo will have his noggin cryogenically preserved?

I think that's a joke about Disney being frozen. Someone who hated him put it about that he'd had it done "in an attempt to become a warmer-hearted person".

[Jagärdu]

Single accounts used by multiple individuals are probably quite rare, but only because it's exceptionally difficult to attain the level of trust required between the people using the account (since any one of them could go off the reservation at any time and change the password without telling the others). But some sort of anti-cult organization could probably manage it... If the real-world consequences (outside of Wikiland) for any one person taking over the account are serious enough, then it's a much more feasible strategy - after all, more people mean more activity, which leads to adminship much sooner (and more easily).

Surely it would be more advantageous for two individuals to edit as two (or more) user-accounts than as one. But if this really is the prevailing theory, I'm surprised nobody nominated Cirt for Herschel's tag-team event.

Depends on the advantage you seek. Editing from one account with sysop privileges, and the protection of a core of administrators who think anyone opposed to Cirt might be in league with the evil Scientologists out to get him is certainly an advantage. Also, having multiple people edit from the account that first year, when he was racking up thousands of housekeeping edits and building a new identity would most certainly have been an advantage, if only in the ability to edit in volume.

[Milton Roe]

Why would a guy pick out a name like Smeelgova for themselves?

Why would a guy pick out a name like Rachel Brown?

Cause he's a perverted guy? The difference is that person did it to game the men. Cirt would have been doing it to game the Joan of Arc and Durova-loving... Durova. Nothing says drama like a woman in armor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._adminship/Cirt

It’s an honor to be the nominator of one of en:wiki’s most qualified candidates for RFA. Cirt is already an arbitrator at Wikinews, an administrator at Commons, and an OTRS volunteer. At Wikipedia he has contributed 11 featured articles, 26 good articles, 33 “Did you know” articles, 1 featured topic, and 11 featured portals (he’s the most prolific contributor of featured portals on this website). He has made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia. In connection with his OTRS work, cross-project deletion work, and his AFD work it makes sense for him to have the tools at this project too.

Yes. Smeelgova seems almost tailor-made to be pleasing to Durova. She, the mentor of both Moulton and melodramatic Jon/Navou/Mercury/WordMachine/NonvocalScream...

[CharlotteWebb]

Depends on the advantage you seek. Editing from one account with sysop privileges, and the protection of a core of administrators who think anyone opposed to Cirt might be in league with the evil Scientologists out to get him is certainly an advantage.

No, I really think whatever benefit this affords you would be less than editing from multiple sysop accounts (cf. the Poethorde), even if the second exists as nothing other than contingency if/when arbcom shoots down the first.