Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Cirt _ Cirt's Scientology edits - February 2011

Posted by: Gruntled

Hey. In case nobody's noticed it's February now. Can some kind mod please close this thread so we can start a new one? And since this is obviously campaigning for Cirt for Dick of the Year award, should it be in a different forum?

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(Avirosa @ Wed 2nd February 2011, 12:10pm) *

QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 31st January 2011, 2:17pm) *

That said, nothing published by the ICSA is in anyway, shape or form a credible source when it comes to criticizing well respected academics.


"Well Respected Academic" = source that supports my POV ...

... but if the absurdity of the notion of "Well Respected Academic" were allowed to operate unchecked - then Wikipedia humanities articles would be based entirely on single paradigm populism.

You have contradicted yourself here. First you claim that I mean simply any academic who supports "my" POV when I say that, then you suggest that the phrase represents a hegemonic "single paradigm" within some discipline. I'll grant you the latter, but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge what is mainstream within scholarship. Scholars do that. "Well-respected academics" are well respected by their colleagues in ways we can measure. If you oppose academically hegemonic POVs that's fine, but again Wikipedia's various policies rightly suggest that editors follow mainstream academic thought as much as possible, hegemonic or not. The ICSA is not mainstream, and those academics who have published in their publications about the supposed "scandal" of scholars like Melton have, for the most part, been rebuked or ignored by mainstream scholars in the social sciences and religious studies. ICSA publications are also likely to contain fringe theories like "mind control". So again, nothing wrong with dealing appropriately with fringe and minority POVs, but the suggestion that a scholar IS controversial because of the opinion of someone writing in publication operating on the fringes of the academy is something that should be rightly ignored.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 2nd February 2011, 9:52am) *

Hey. In case nobody's noticed it's February now. Can some kind mod please close this thread so we can start a new one? And since this is obviously campaigning for Cirt for Dick of the Year award, should it be in a different forum?
I split off a new month. But, I kept it in this forum, because in some respects it is more useful criticism of WP than the DICK contest (which is mainly for recreational purposes.)

Posted by: HRIP7

It seems Daryl's Wine Bar has now closed (for refurbishment). Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant at deleting the article. popcorn.gif

Posted by: HRIP7

On February 1st, Cirt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/February_2&diff=next&oldid=411282483 the following to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 2 (T-H-L-K-D), due to appear in the main page's "On this day ..." box the following day:

QUOTE
The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] issued its final ruling in '''''[[Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard]]''''' and affirmed the decision of the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|District Court]]; [[Werner Erhard]] [[Default (finance)|defaulted on the payment]] due to Ney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/February_2&direction=prev&oldid=411350612 – http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/February_2&oldid=411350612

Howcheng (T-C-L-K-R-D) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=412149743#Ney_v._Landmark_Education that this had no business appearing in the "On this day ..." section of the main page, but in the end left it in.

I wonder how many anniversaries of court cases Erhard won appear on the anniversary pages.

Incidentally, Cirt's Lord of the Universe (T-H-L-K-D) was also on the main page on February 2nd.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 5th February 2011, 10:50am) *

Incidentally, Cirt's Lord of the Universe (T-H-L-K-D) was also on the main page on February 2nd.

Having been worked over by both Jimbo and Will Beback first, so this is a fairly political move.

And Jossi (Fresco)'s head did not explode, because he was permablocked by Viridae, back in June, 2009 (with the explanation being that it was a sock account, like we all believed THAT). Jossi having resigned as administrator, Nixon style, at the end of 2008 after being pwned by Cirt, Gerard, et al. in the Scientology debates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Final_decision

Incidentally, I never understood why the discussion of Jossi's Premie roots, well discussed here on WR, never wound up in our editors' section.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology&oldid=412263290#moved_from_log_of_actions continues to be quality entertainment. I'm not sure that Scott is being entirely forthcoming when he says he has no idea what Will's game is. It's obvious to me. Will is very fearful that Scott will set a precedent, where actually neutral admins will begin invading the turf of corrupt admins who have built little POV fiefdoms for themselves around topics which they WP:OWN and use to push POV. Will must be feeling very vulnerable right now.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 6th February 2011, 4:27pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology&oldid=412263290#moved_from_log_of_actions continues to be quality entertainment. I'm not sure that Scott is being entirely forthcoming when he says he has no idea what Will's game is. It's obvious to me. Will is very fearful that Scott will set a precedent, where actually neutral admins will begin invading the turf of corrupt admins who have built little POV fiefdoms for themselves around topics which they WP:OWN and use to push POV. Will must be feeling very vulnerable right now.

Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.

Posted by: carbuncle

Would a mod mind changing the title of this thread to "Cirt's Scientology edits - February 2011" for consistency's sake? Thanks.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Mod's note: we aim to please.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 9th February 2011, 4:14am) *

Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.

I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Just to add the background to this, as far as I understand it.


Is that about right?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:53pm) *
Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant_%282nd_nomination%29, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece. Which, in turn, didn't mention the CoS connection at all.

It looks like that article is about to be deleted, which is probably just as well. I suppose the only real harm it was doing was to Wikipedia itself though, so personally I wouldn't be bothered about it either way.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th February 2011, 2:20pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:53pm) *
Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant_%282nd_nomination%29, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece.


Such a puff piece would be welcomed on other, commercially-operated wikis.

Posted by: Lar

I have modified the following

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 9th February 2011, 2:53pm) *

Just to add the background to this, as far as I understand it.
  • We all agree _____X_______ is a bad thing
  • However, some people think it is such a bad thing, that they are targeting BLPs of people suspected of pro ______X_______ associations, and adding all sorts of dubious stuff as though it were at all relevant
  • This is also a bad thing.


to make the point that _______X_______ has many values on WP.

.... LaRouchism, ID, Cold Fusion advocacy, not liking PETA, not liking Israel, not liking Palestine, Global Warming, etc etc etc.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 9th February 2011, 8:57am) *
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 9th February 2011, 4:14am) *
Will is evidently ape-shit crazy. Will evidently has a brick for a brain.
Will does not deserve the slightest sympathy, so let's not allow him any, please.
I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.

For one thing, it demonizes both apes and shit.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th February 2011, 7:34pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th February 2011, 2:20pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 9th February 2011, 12:53pm) *
Is that about right?

Essentially correct, but in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant_%282nd_nomination%29, Mr. Cirt went a little further than what might have been considered wise or politically expedient, by rewarding an ex-Scientologist (who IIRC had spoken out against the CoS after leaving it) with an unabashed, and highly extensive, puff-piece.


Such a puff piece would be welcomed on other, commercially-operated wikis.

A point I mentioned in that discussion, as I hope you noticed. wink.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

An anon IP removed an image of South Park co-creator Trey Parker an article about a Scientology-themed episode. Cirt reverted with an edit summary of "highly relevant and appropriate photo and caption" and started the following discussion on the talk page:

QUOTE
Photo of director and writer of the episode

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)&diff=413662938&oldid=413392341- The photo of the director and writer of the episode, Trey Parker, is highly relevant and appropriate in this article. Please, do not remove it. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In what way is it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, he wrote and directed the episode. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt entirely, it is perfectly relevant and appropriate director and writer in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Having a look at featured articles on cartoon episodes, the vast majority do not have a photo of the writer and/or director. When one is included, it is usually because it was their first episode or they personally won an award for the episode. What makes this episode special in relation to Trey? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
because he was personally involved in "closetgate" outside just writing and directing the episode. It bled over into real life.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Normally Cirt doesn't bother to start talk page discussions when reverting IPs, so I suppose the extra attention is making them more thoughtful. Thanks, OrangeDog, for the chuckles.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 15th February 2011, 3:34am) *

An anon IP removed an image of South Park co-creator Trey Parker an article about a Scientology-themed episode. Cirt reverted with an edit summary of "highly relevant and appropriate photo and caption" and started the following discussion on the talk page:
QUOTE
Photo of director and writer of the episode

Normally Cirt doesn't bother to start talk page discussions when reverting IPs, so I suppose the extra attention is making them more thoughtful. Thanks, OrangeDog, for the chuckles.


One thing that is striking about the South Park article is that Isaac Hayes' statement about why he quit is not included, although the article makes room for plenty of taunting invective and rumour directed at him and Cruise.

Hayes' statement was http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mobile+network+%22can't+connect+to+the%22#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbs=nws:1%2Car%3A1&q=issac+hayes+satire+bigotry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=5614f121b0b9bd65 in mainstream press. Hayes spoke of a "growing insensitivity toward personal spiritual beliefs" in the media that was also reflected in the Muhammad cartoons controversy: "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins."

On the Xenu talk page, Cirt dismissed this as "Hayes's-channeling-of-the-Scientology-organization position, often parroted out about so-called 'bigotry...'"

Not including such a widely reported statement is arguably a form of censorship.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 9th February 2011, 10:57am) *
I'm not sure that characterizing others as "ape-shit crazy" is useful.
I'm fairly sure that giving substantial authority to people who are ape-shit crazy is not useful.

Posted by: lilburne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug

Posted by: Jagärdu

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 17th February 2011, 12:13am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug

Wow. There is a paradox I still can't get over. Cirt was supposedly being threatened or harassed off wiki and therefore had his name changed, yada yada. Assuming that was true, and not a giant plume of smoke being blown up everyone's arse, why would anyone with knowledge of that situation think it's a good idea to allow Cirt to keep up his crusade? Isn't he just provoking all these bogeymen out there to get him? This Shutterbug sock paranoia is amusing of course.

Posted by: Gruntled

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 17th February 2011, 12:13am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug

I think some people will have to take back some of the nastier remarks about Chase me. He's headed in the right direction. If he keeps this up, I'll be nominating him for straight shooter next time.
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Thu 17th February 2011, 2:52am) *

Cirt was supposedly being threatened or harassed off wiki and therefore had his name changed, yada yada. Assuming that was true

Occam's razor - don't make unnecessary assumptions.

Posted by: Beer me

The cult loving anthropologist has just attacked Delicious Carbuncle at BLPN over cult bashing Cirt wtf.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Beer me @ Thu 17th February 2011, 8:54pm) *
The cult loving anthropologist has just attacked Delicious Carbuncle at BLPN over cult bashing Cirt wtf.gif

I believe you're referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=414579994#New_Village_Leadership_Academy, in which Cirt tries the "nothing to see here, please move along" approach to one of his previous efforts to discredit the Scientologists.

As for the Isaac Hayes quote about bigotry, as much as I dislike Scientology, I guess I'd have to agree that it should be in the article. It's just as likely to make Hayes and the CoS look hypocritical as anything else, and it would be more fair, at least in my opinion. Besides, the CoS is taking a beating at the moment because of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright, and while I don't think it's even the first nail in their coffin, recruitment-wise I think they're going to have a rough couple of years. An article on the South Park episode isn't likely to have much impact in comparison to that, and most people who like South Park aren't likely to be part of Scientology's optimal demographic anyway.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:53am) *

Besides, the CoS is taking a beating at the moment because of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright, and while I don't think it's even the first nail in their coffin, recruitment-wise I think they're going to have a rough couple of years.

What is stranger still is that there appear to be no edits at all about the FBI slave labor investigation revealed in the New Yorker piece--nothing at all in the histories for the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, Tom Cruise or Tommy Davis (Scientology) articles. Nothing on the talk pages either, not even on the WikiProject Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology. Nada. This seems a most unusual exercise in restraint not merely from Cirt, but all of the anti-Scilon crew at WP. This despite the fact it has been all over the media for two weeks now (interview with author http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/feb/09/wright-scientology/).

One wonders if a bunch of stuff just got wished off into the cornfield. Or perhaps the WMF is taking the suggestions of the FBI's legal counsel much more seriously nowadays. Or maybe both. fear.gif


EDIT: The author also has a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wright. Nothing there either.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 20th February 2011, 9:25pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:53am) *

Besides, the CoS is taking a beating at the moment because of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright, and while I don't think it's even the first nail in their coffin, recruitment-wise I think they're going to have a rough couple of years.

What is stranger still is that there appear to be no edits at all about the FBI slave labor investigation revealed in the New Yorker piece--nothing at all in the histories for the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, Tom Cruise or Tommy Davis (Scientology) articles. Nothing on the talk pages either, not even on the WikiProject Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology. Nada. This seems a most unusual exercise in restraint not merely from Cirt, but all of the anti-Scilon crew at WP. This despite the fact it has been all over the media for two weeks now (interview with author http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/feb/09/wright-scientology/).

One wonders if a bunch of stuff just got wished off into the cornfield. Or perhaps the WMF is taking the suggestions of the FBI's legal counsel much more seriously nowadays. Or maybe both. fear.gif


EDIT: The author also has a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wright. Nothing there either.

I doubt that anything in the New Yorker piece is news to the people who follow the CoS closely, so there's probably not much that needs to be added (tl:dr). I suspect that everyone who edits regularly in that topic area is aware by now that controversial Scientology-related edits while there is increased scrutiny will probably be bad news for them (and almost certainly for Cirt).

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE
He felt unsettled by the lack of irony among many fellow-Scientologists—an inability to laugh at themselves, which seemed at odds with the character of Hubbard himself. When Haggis felt doubts about the religion, he recalled 16-mm. films he had seen of Hubbard’s lectures from the fifties and sixties. “He had this amazing buoyancy,” Haggis says. “He had a deadpan humor and this sense of himself that seemed to say, ‘Yes, I am fully aware that I might be mad, but I also might be on to something.’ ”

Why do I keep wanting to replace "Scientology" with "Wikipedia" and "Hubbard" with "Wales"?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 20th February 2011, 6:17pm) *
Why do I keep wanting to replace "Scientology" with "Wikipedia" and "Hubbard" with "Wales"?
Because you recognize a cult when you smell it?

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:17pm) *

I doubt that anything in the New Yorker piece is news to the people who follow the CoS closely, so there's probably not much that needs to be added (tl:dr). I suspect that everyone who edits regularly in that topic area is aware by now that controversial Scientology-related edits while there is increased scrutiny will probably be bad news for them (and almost certainly for Cirt).

Not true, I'm afraid. The allegations of slave labor, physical and mental abuse, and other human rights abuses may be years, or even decades, old; but the bit about the human trafficking task force of the FBI investigating COS for slave labor practices was news to the people over at the http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33960 that Cirt happens to be a member of. The article, and particularly the part about the FBI investigation, has unsurprisingly lit up the board over at OCMB, and presumably has done the same over at Why We Protest. I didn't see any posts from Cirt over there regarding this; there are several relevant threads and I only skimmed over two of them.

To be investigated by the FBI for over a year for slave labor practices is a pretty big deal. It may not necessarily result in indictments, but it is not a matter to take lightly either. I may be a total outsider to the world of COS, but rather less so DOJ. It is very rare, but not unprecedented, for the FBI to actually confirm the existence of an ongoing probe. This tells me two things: 1) they have strong reason to suspect that crimes within federal jurisdiction did occur, and 2) they are aware the target of the probe already knows they are being investigated.

Also, a good measure of the seriousness with which the New Yorker took this situation appears in the Wright interview I linked to above. At 15:20 Wright describes an all-day meeting between the staff of the NY and COS. Lawyers and fact checkers were present.

We have often commented here at The Review upon WP's obsession with "recentism", particularly when it involves damning reports in the media against People We Don't Like™. Reports of slave labor investigations certainly would rank pretty high as damning info, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=412292406 over at WP. Despite its irresponsible and at times vicious SOP in dealing with such situations, and the way this flap is lighting up The Rest of the Internet™, WP remains most uncharacteristically silent. Knowing what we do of the ways and wiles of the Frei Kultur Kinder, it is more than a little difficult to believe that there is not massive "off wiki" coordination going on to make sure that all relevant WP pages are kept free of any mention of the investigation.

The only questions I see here is why this is happening and who is responsible for it. It is reasonable to assume that Cirt is involved to some degree; it would be passing strange if he/she/it wasn't.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Cedric @ Mon 21st February 2011, 8:08pm) *


To be investigated by the FBI for over a year for slave labor practices is a pretty big deal. It may not necessarily result in indictments, but it is not a matter to take lightly either. I may be a total outsider to the world of COS, but rather less so DOJ. It is very rare, but not unprecedented, for the FBI to actually confirm the existence of an ongoing probe. This tells me two things: 1) they have strong reason to suspect that crimes within federal jurisdiction did occur, and 2) they are aware the target of the probe already knows they are being investigated.


How may agents has the FBI assigned full time to the CoS investigation? That's a good measure of how serious the investigation is.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 21st February 2011, 5:04pm) *

How may agents has the FBI assigned full time to the CoS investigation? That's a good measure of how serious the investigation is.

Just one agent. But he's a SPECIAL agent. ohmy.gif

Posted by: Cedric

Moderator note: Later posts moved http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33206.