Cirt's not dead yet, and he's already working on his next project Options

[Cla68]

Putting all this together must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Putting all this together must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.

Yes, it's top-notch work. Will Cirt respond? If not, what about the Community™?

[Cla68]

Putting all this together must have been a lot of work, but it's worth seeing Cirt's response, at least.

Yes, it's top-notch work. Will Cirt respond? If not, what about the Community™?

A couple of editors aren't too happy with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.

[carbuncle]

A couple of editors aren't too happy with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.

Probably on to something? Wow. To me, this is just more of the same with Cirt. Same tactics, same motivations, same result.

Jayen466 put an excellent case together, but I am not sure what effect it will have. For one thing, doing this on Cirt's talk page -- the correct and polite WP thing to do -- means that it won't be as widely read as it should be. For another, the "santorum" issue is very muddled. Even if one assumes that everything that Jayen466 says is correct, the question that is likely to be asked is "Has Cirt broken any rules?".

There seem to be some widely divergent views about what should happen with the santorum article, from deleting it, to renaming it, to merging into another Rick Santorum article, to keeping it as is but removing the actual definition of santorum. It will be fairly easy for Cirt and his supporters to defend keeping the article as is, since there is a fractious opposition. And honestly, although many people are apparently having the same reaction to the article -- that it is an unnecessary hit piece -- there isn't any rule against it. The fact that Santorum seems to be a rather odious politician doesn't help.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

A couple of editors aren't too happy with Jayen's research and conclusions. It was Cirt's defensive reaction and his choosing not to respond to everything that Jayen brought up that caused me to think that Jayen was probably onto something.

It is much bigger now. It's not that Will Beback doesn't believe in WikiHounding. It's just that you must WikiHound the correct people, not Cirt.

[chrisoff]

Is this article by Cirt really about David Shankbone?

Look at the article history:

David Shankbone posts on Cirt's page.

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Thu 26th May 2011, 10:38pm

[carbuncle]

I started a new thread about the santorum article in the articles forum, mostly in the interests of later search results. Short version: Cirt isn't interested in santorum, they are interested in Dan Savage because Savage had Scientologists kicked out of a flea market.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about this gigantic eruption?

[Zoloft]

The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about this gigantic eruption?

Well, first the Cat in the Hat showed up, then Thing One and Thing Two. They caused a huge mess. Then Little Cat A complained, followed by Little Cat B under his Hat, all the way down to Little Cat Z, who threatened me with a salami. That mess got Hatted with a Voom. Then Bartholomew showed up with some Oobleck and nobody's found a way to get rid of that yet.

[melloden]

The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about this gigantic eruption?

Well, first the Cat in the Hat showed up, then Thing One and Thing Two. They caused a huge mess. Then Little Cat A complained, followed by Little Cat B under his Hat, all the way down to Little Cat Z, who threatened me with a salami. That mess got Hatted with a Voom. Then Bartholomew showed up with some Oobleck and nobody's found a way to get rid of that yet.

I like salami.

[Zoloft]

The Cirt drama is unfolding so fast and taking up so much bandwidth that I feel somewhat overwhelmed. What about this gigantic eruption?

Well, first the Cat in the Hat showed up, then Thing One and Thing Two. They caused a huge mess. Then Little Cat A complained, followed by Little Cat B under his Hat, all the way down to Little Cat Z, who threatened me with a salami. That mess got Hatted with a Voom. Then Bartholomew showed up with some Oobleck and nobody's found a way to get rid of that yet.

I like salami.

I like it too, but the serving suggestion I found to be lacking. But it was when I offered to slice up the Littlest Cat's salami that things became quigley.

Not wiggly. Not jiggly. But all over quigley. He popped up and behaved in a manner most piggly.

...and in a related manner, my final edit on the slippery subject of Savage's Google-bomb.

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Sat 28th May 2011, 1:36am

[tarantino]

Cirt's use of wmf projects for political activism is currently being discussed on ANI, commons, jimbo's talk page and the wikien list.

No doubt this is all being instigated by wikihounders who congregate in off-site forums. His supporters include the likes of David Gerard, George William Herbert and Wnt (whom Jimbo respects very much, lol).

[It's the blimp, Frank]

His supporters include the likes of David Gerard, George William Herbert and Wnt (whom Jimbo respects very much, lol).

Wow, you can really count on Georgewiliamherbert to suck. "Dan Savage is responsible for this." These guys take a non-notable POV and amplify it to 125 dB, and then say, "the sources made me do it."

[Zoloft]

Wikitorum:

The frothy mixture of anal-retentive addition of content and drama-filled accusation against opponents when editors in good standing use discussion based on common sense and basic human decency in an attempt to uphold the stated principle of Wikipedia that articles that touch on living people not be used to create harm to said people.

Social lubrication between editors currying favor with each other to further their future influence onsite and accusations based on bad-faith interpretation of legitimate offsite criticism add a characteristic odor to this mixture.

Wikitorum was first detected by users of Wikipedia in 2001. Massive supplies of it are now available.

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Sat 28th May 2011, 4:44am

[EricBarbour]

aaagggghhhh head hurt head hurt.............

(assholes, all of 'em)

[lilburne]

Wikitorum:

Add it to urbandictionary.

[Milton Roe]

Wikitorum:

Add it to urbandictionary.

A user of WR forum
Once bought some tight pants and he wore 'em.
Then he stooped and he laughed
As he felt a big draft
And he said right away "Wikitorum."

[Zoloft]

Urban Dictonary? I would never dream of attempting such a thing. I am a wiki guy all the way.

[chrisoff]

There is an arbcom opened on Cirt's political activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...itical_activism

But he has family problems and is too ill and busy to be involved, and requested to be let off.


(Meanwhile he has an FAC going on one of his bacon books.)

[lilburne]

There is an arbcom opened on Cirt's political activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...itical_activism

But he has family problems and is too ill and busy to be involved, and requested to be let off.


(Meanwhile he has an FAC going on one of his bacon books.)

WP is unable to handle these issues. It is a systemic problem. Once they have cited crap on the system it is near impossible to remove it. In this instance the battle lines are drawn, no RFC will resolve it one way or the other, and the default position is to do nothing.

The cites on that particular page are all speculation. Talking media heads pontificating to other talking media head, and chuckling over a bit of toilet humour. That is basically all it is. The cites also demonstrate another problem with WP, all of it is recentism. It doesn't matter whether the citation is from 6 years ago or 6 days ago, the citation itself is almost always a response to some news event of the particular day or week. So: guy says he's gonna stand for office, whadda we know about him? Oh there is that Savage site, that's funny lets work that in. No one else cares, none of his core supporters are going to not vote for him because of it. None of his detractors are going to vote for him if the site suddenly disappears. The middle ground won't give a flying fuck, as Clinton said "Its the economy".