Kenneth Dickson, 50 sources, but no notability Options

[HRIP7]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

[Ottava]

Here are the sources:

* The Riverside Press-Enterprise (north of San Diego/next county)
* The Press-Enterprise (same as Riverside Press-Enterprise apparently)
* The Valley News (San Diego county)
* The San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego)
* North County Times (north of San Diego/same county)
* East County Magazine (San Diego county)
* Emporia Gazette (Emporia, Kansas) - minor use and about father

This search provides no real new sources.

Now, I must say, San Diego county does have a population of 3,222,466. That is larger than some states. Now, the Riverside press is from Riverside County, with a population of 2,073,571.

That means 5.2 million people. Just with San Diego alone, it should be enough that the "local" papers are proof of notability. It is, according to Wikipedia: "the ninth largest city in the United States, second-largest city in California and 46th largest city in the Americas"


I did think this comment was stupid:

Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president."

Outside of fantasy land, not many people appear in the newspaper that often, especially small-town alderman. Furthermore, being notable among San Diego and a neighboring county would be far different than being a "small-town alderman".

[ulsterman]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

It's perfectly obvious that he meets WP standards of notability. (He's had loads of coverage in non-trivial places.) Whether those standards make sense is another question, of course. Still, notable doesn't necessarily mean famous. There are plenty of worthy people who "deserve" (if that's the right word) a WP article who will never ever get onto "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" or whatever.

[HRIP7]

Interesting AfD.

Views?

It's perfectly obvious that he meets WP standards of notability. (He's had loads of coverage in non-trivial places.) Whether those standards make sense is another question, of course. Still, notable doesn't necessarily mean famous. There are plenty of worthy people who "deserve" (if that's the right word) a WP article who will never ever get onto "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" or whatever.

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

[taiwopanfob]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

Could not a similar argument be made for the recent 2010 Central Canada earthquake? Authored by someone who should know better, over-referenced, predominately local mainstream media sources whose coverage is little more than water-cooler babble writ large, intense wikification, etc?

[ulsterman]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

WP:MASK is a sensationally "good" policy. By "good" I mean that it succeeds in giving admins significantly greater power to use and (not that we'd ever accuse Mr Vandenberg of such a thing) abuse. In a nutshell, it says "even if an aticle passes every possible criteria of notability, WP:RS, etc. it can still be deleted if someone doesn't like it".

[A Horse With No Name]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

Could not a similar argument be made for the recent 2010 Central Canada earthquake? Authored by someone who should know better, over-referenced, predominately local mainstream media sources whose coverage is little more than water-cooler babble writ large, intense wikification, etc?

To be frank (as opposed to being Frank, which is silly since we already have one - or One, in this case), WP:MASK could be used to delete about 98% of Wikipedia's content. Which, of course, would put the ARS out of business and leave the site with nothing except a bunch of teenage admins blocking naughty IPs.

[HRIP7]

Deleted by John Vandenberg, presumably per WP:MASK.

WP:MASK is a sensationally "good" policy. By "good" I mean that it succeeds in giving admins significantly greater power to use and (not that we'd ever accuse Mr Vandenberg of such a thing) abuse. In a nutshell, it says "even if an aticle passes every possible criteria of notability, WP:RS, etc. it can still be deleted if someone doesn't like it".

WP:MASK is not policy, but an essay. Some essays like WP:COATRACK acquire broad support and an almost policy-like standing, but most others sink without a trace. Time will tell what will happen to this one; it is still quite young.

Personally I think WP:MASK has something useful to say, but yes, it is potentially a very e--l--a--s--t--i--c concept.

[milowent]

Ken Dickson was one of those cases where someone has been cited in the local press a ton of times but he's done nothing of importance. Even I could not bring myself to vote keep as a rabid inclusionist. The article was a case of extreme puffery, and I was surprised to learn that its flowery lead sprung into the existence at the very first edit of its creation by Cirt. E.g., The 2nd sentence of the lead was about how Mr. Dickson learned his virtues from his Dad or something like that. Why write it like that? I have no idea.

I tried to rewrite the lead so one could see why he might be notable instead of it being four paragraphs of baloney. That's when I realized there was nothing to write. Essentially the guy is/was a member of the local school board and for one term its chair, and then was a failed candidate in the Republican primary for the local California Senate district, I believe. (He lost the primary earlier this month.) Cirt, who edits at superhuman speeds, was reverting my work lightning fast without discussion outside the edit summary. So I made a quick edit summary that the lead "SUCKS BALLS" to get his goddamn attention. Of course then he complains and drags me to the BLP noticeboard to ask whether BLP applies to edit summaries. Cirt also believed that the article needed to have a large four paragraph introduction because that's what Feature Articles have, though I noted that some things should never be Featured because then the word Feature will mean nothing. Some wikipedia entries deserve to be two paragraphs.

Of course, Ken Dickson is the same AFD where Herostratus mouthed off about the guy's lack of notability, which directly led to his dramafest recall RFA now in progress.

I would not have objected to the article being kept, but it needed an extreme puffery makeover. No intention of bashing Cirt in my post, I have come to enjoy his bot like posts on talk pages, we just disagreed strongly on this.

This post has been edited by milowent:

[EricBarbour]

I tried to rewrite the lead so one could see why he might be notable instead of it being four paragraphs of baloney. That's when I realized there was nothing to write. Essentially the guy is/was a member of the local school board and for one term its chair, and then was a failed candidate in the Republican primary for the local California Senate district, I believe. (He lost the primary earlier this month.) Cirt, who edits at superhuman speeds, was reverting my work lightning fast without discussion outside the edit summary. So I made a quick edit summary that the lead "SUCKS BALLS" to get his goddamn attention. Of course then he complains and drags me to the BLP noticeboard to ask whether BLP applies to edit summaries. Cirt also believed that the article needed to have a large four paragraph introduction because that's what Feature Articles have, though I noted that some things should never be Featured because then the word Feature will mean nothing. Some wikipedia entries deserve to be two paragraphs.

Of course, Ken Dickson is the same AFD where Herostratus mouthed off about the guy's lack of notability, which directly led to his dramafest recall RFA now in progress.

Perhaps I'm off-base, but seeing this makes me wonder if Cirt is being paid to write such crap BLPs.
Or is he in fact Ken Dickson himself, in real life? Or a friend or relative? Whatever, Cirt is still Cirt---
smug, mechanical, hyperactive, and far from being the best of WP's admin corps.

I'm still wondering if he's actually an AI program. "Sir....are you human?"

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[milowent]

Perhaps I'm off-base, but seeing this makes me wonder if Cirt is being paid to write such crap BLPs.

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

[Somey]

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

You could start here... This has been suggested before, and if it keeps up, we're going to have to give him his own subforum. (Or is User:Cirt female? We never did figure that one out, as I recall.)

I've actually defended Cirt to some extent in the past, but IMO the Dickson article was the most objectionable thing he (or she) ever did, putting aside the issue of whether or not Dickson himself wanted (or paid for?) the article to be written and posted. With that gone, I'd have to say that Cirt isn't really all that bad anymore, unless you're a Scientologist of course. (Though it's probably best not to go into too much detail on that score.)

[Moulton]

It's probably best not to go into too much detail on that score.

Are you trying to earn a point by tempting me to write another song parody?

[Jagärdu]

I'd have to say that Cirt isn't really all that bad anymore ...

Depends on how you look at it. I think someone who has the skill to mask non-notable subjects and the social capital to usually get away with it, like present day Cirt is much more damaging to the project than a known POV warrior like Smee (former Cirt). The masking essay might as well have been written about Cirt, btw -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MASK.

Regarding Dickson specifically it should be noted that he ran in an election this June. Cirt started editing the page in the fall, probably shortly before or after he announced his candidacy. I highly doubt that Dickson is Cirt or that Cirt is simply a supporter of his. S/he has been beautifying (though not fluffing up ... yet) the entry for a Democratic congressional candidate of late -- Rob Miller of SC. I doubt that a Dickson supporter would also support Miller ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Miller_(S...ina_politician)

I almost forgot. Cirt is particularly good at advertising books. Often this is done within his/her POV areas, but check this recent gem out -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga:_Queen_of_Pop. Consider for a moment what types of subjects s/he puts this kind of meticulous editing into, outside of the Scientology/EST/cult area s/he clearly cares personally about. I guarantee you the articles you will find relate to people or a products that have something to gain from PR and not a general topic of interest.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[NuclearWarfare]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

[Jagärdu]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review. In case you're wondering whether to use masculine or feminine pronouns I'm male. Do you have any comments on the discussion in the thread? I'd love to hear your take.

[Zoloft]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

<snip>I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review.</snip>

And apparently a paid-up lifetime member of the Tautology Club.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Welcome.

[Milton Roe]

that idle thought occurred to me but i really have nothing to back up any such speculation.

You could start here... This has been suggested before, and if it keeps up, we're going to have to give him his own subforum. (Or is User:Cirt female? We never did figure that one out, as I recall.)

Well, Smeeglova is definitely a feminized Russian form of Smee. Hard to imagine your average manly-man using it. It would be sort of like putting on a brassiere and high heels, for a farce. Damn it's hard to spell brassiere.

[Somey]

Depends on how you look at it. I think someone who has the skill to mask non-notable subjects and the social capital to usually get away with it, like present day Cirt is much more damaging to the project than a known POV warrior like Smee (former Cirt). The masking essay might as well have been written about Cirt, btw -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MASK.

Well, I agree 100 percent, actually - but to me, "harmful to the project" is a good thing. As for WP:MASK, I applaud the fact that some of them are admitting that this goes on, but my personal view is that promoting products (particularly books, music, movies, etc.) on WP is largely harmless. The problems (IMO) occur when people like Cirt do things that might serve to lower "notability" standards for BLP's and articles about cause organizations, political entities, and to some extent commercial entities. If they ever implement an opt-out policy, I could easily see them lowering the BLP notability standards to include people like Dickson (who, presumably, wants the article about himself to be included), but not until then.

I guarantee you the articles you will find relate to people or a products that have something to gain from PR and not a general topic of interest.

What's frustrating is that this looks really obvious, but it's difficult to prove because the source of Cirt's (presumably contractual) paid-editing work isn't going to admit anything, and certainly Cirt won't either. In fact, if any of this is true, it leads me to believe that everyone involved in Cirt's promotional activities is female, including Cirt - if there were males involved, at least one of them would be bragging online about how they're getting away with it scot-free.

[Jagärdu]

Hi there. Welcome to WR.

Who are you?

<snip>I'm a newly registered user of Wikipedia Review.</snip>

And apparently a paid-up lifetime member of the Tautology Club.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Welcome.

The only club worth belonging to. Out of curiosity is it standard practice to be met with the "who are you" greeting here? Would be good to know when I encounter new users. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Jagärdu]

In fact, if any of this is true, it leads me to believe that everyone involved in Cirt's promotional activities is female, including Cirt - if there were males involved, at least one of them would be bragging online about how they're getting away with it scot-free.

Ha. You're probably right. That's why I have problems with the idea that more than one person is behind the account, which I've thought on many occasions, but that would really increase the likelihood of someone letting it slip. If Cirt is actually getting paid to edit I actually think it's only a matter of time before it comes out. S/he has to get new clients somehow and the process can't be totally esoteric because then no one would know how to hire her/him. At some point someone who thinks its worth exposing would get access to that process I would think, but what do I know.

[Eva Destruction]

The only club worth belonging to. Out of curiosity is it standard practice to be met with the "who are you" greeting here? Would be good to know when I encounter new users. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Generally. That "WP user page - talk - check - contribs" link underneath most people's names is there for a reason; if you join a group that's one of the strongest critics of anonymous editing but refuse to say who you are, people start speculating. That's not to say you're obliged – plenty of people here have either never had a Wikipedia account or choose not to divulge it for fear of repercussions from Jimbo's goon-squad – but you have to expect someone* to come up with ludicrous speculation about your identity otherwise.

*well, by "somebody" I mean "Ottava"

[A Horse With No Name]

Out of curiosity is it standard practice to be met with the "who are you" greeting here?

Nah, that's just NuclearWarfare being rude. Fortunately, everyone else on Wikipedia Review is very, very, very polite. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Somey]

If Cirt is actually getting paid to edit I actually think it's only a matter of time before it comes out. S/he has to get new clients somehow and the process can't be totally esoteric because then no one would know how to hire her/him. At some point someone who thinks its worth exposing would get access to that process I would think, but what do I know.

My guess would be that the source is an agent who's hired by various authors to get their work published, or else someone who works directly with such an agent. (Though in practical terms, it's more like the authors work for the agents these days.) If it were someone at an actual publishing company there would be too many people knowing about it, whereas agents have to be highly secretive about their contacts and methods anyway, just to stay in business.

In any event, the Everything Tastes Better With Bacon book and the Lady Gaga book were printed by two different publishers. And it also strikes me that some of Cirt's book-promotion articles are probably unpaid work samples, to be used in obtaining more (and better) contract jobs. Again, this is assuming that Cirt is being paid for these articles at all, which I fear will remain difficult (if not impossible) to prove.

Anyhoo, I fully expect to get an e-mail from Cirt within the next 2-3 days telling me these allegations are absurd, unfounded, etc., and that (s)he just does it for the heck of it, because (s)he enjoyed reading the books in question. So, I apologize in advance for stating these suspicions without hard evidence.

[Jagärdu]

... you have to expect someone* to come up with ludicrous speculation about your identity otherwise.

Sounds like fun.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Jagärdu]

Anyhoo, I fully expect to get an e-mail from Cirt within the next 2-3 days telling me these allegations are absurd, unfounded, etc., and that (s)he just does it for the heck of it, because (s)he enjoyed reading the books in question. So, I apologize in advance for stating these suspicions without hard evidence.

Well prior to this discussion starting one S. Marshall did make the following comment during the Dickson AfD - "I wasn't sure the nomination was in good faith because certain comments on the Wikipedia Review led me to believe that there was an anti-Cirt campaign in progress." S. Marshall Nostradamus perhaps, though I wouldn't call the natural curiosity that is peeked by Cirt's odd editing patterns a campaign against him/her.

[Subtle Bee]

The only club worth belonging to. Out of curiosity is it standard practice to be met with the "who are you" greeting here? Would be good to know when I encounter new users. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It's pretty common, and will be trotted out occasionally when you're in disagreement over something completely unrelated. I wouldn't worry about it.

[EricBarbour]

Nah, that's just NuclearWarfare being rude. Fortunately, everyone else on Wikipedia Review is very, very, very polite. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, Nuke really sucks. Just ignore him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I'm beginning to suspect that Cirt is Durova's sock. No, I can't offer any direct, provable link between the two accounts, other than a few general suspicions. Not that I give a rat-shit anyway. This is all pointless, Wikipedia is clearly a pile of damaged goods, and its overseers are a gang of fools.

Lise, dear, it's not that you're a bitch, and it's not that you're arrogant.
You simply don't have all that much talent, or even brains, to back it up.

[HRIP7]

Regarding Dickson specifically it should be noted that he ran in an election this June. Cirt started editing the page in the fall, probably shortly before or after he announced his candidacy.

Well, in that case the article lasted just about the right amount of time on Wikipedia -- from the start of Dickson's campaign to the election.

I highly doubt that Dickson is Cirt or that Cirt is simply a supporter of his. S/he has been beautifying (though not fluffing up ... yet) the entry for a Democratic congressional candidate of late -- Rob Miller of SC. I doubt that a Dickson supporter would also support Miller ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Miller_(S...ina_politician)

I almost forgot. Cirt is particularly good at advertising books. Often this is done within his/her POV areas, but check this recent gem out -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga:_Queen_of_Pop. Consider for a moment what types of subjects s/he puts this kind of meticulous editing into, outside of the Scientology/EST/cult area s/he clearly cares personally about. I guarantee you the articles you will find relate to people or a products that have something to gain from PR and not a general topic of interest.

For what it's worth, I recall that in the RfC on Paid Editing last year Cirt came down very strongly on the side of those opposed to any form of it.

[Subtle Bee]

Nah, that's just NuclearWarfare being rude. Fortunately, everyone else on Wikipedia Review is very, very, very polite. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, Nuke really sucks. Just ignore him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I'm beginning to suspect that Cirt is Durova's sock. No, I can't offer any direct, provable link between the two accounts, other than a few general suspicions. Not that I give a rat-shit anyway. This is all pointless, Wikipedia is clearly a pile of damaged goods, and its overseers are a gang of fools.

Lise, dear, it's not that you're a bitch, and it's not that you're arrogant.
You simply don't have all that much talent, or even brains, to back it up.

Oh great, now I'm all nostalgic! I don't think you're alone in your speculation, though I have far less an informed opinion than yourself.

As of now, still no Durova edits at all since May 31. No "missing you"s, no talkpage entreaties to please come back, no nothing. It's so out of character I just can't help wondering about it - there was some apparent "vandalism" to her page a few days ago, but it was deleted before I saw what it was.

Something's up.

[Milton Roe]

Nah, that's just NuclearWarfare being rude. Fortunately, everyone else on Wikipedia Review is very, very, very polite. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, Nuke really sucks. Just ignore him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I'm beginning to suspect that Cirt is Durova's sock. No, I can't offer any direct, provable link between the two accounts, other than a few general suspicions. Not that I give a rat-shit anyway. This is all pointless, Wikipedia is clearly a pile of damaged goods, and its overseers are a gang of fools.

Lise, dear, it's not that you're a bitch, and it's not that you're arrogant.
You simply don't have all that much talent, or even brains, to back it up.

Oh great, now I'm all nostalgic! I don't think you're alone in your speculation, though I have far less an informed opinion than yourself.

As of now, still no Durova edits at all since May 31. No "missing you"s, no talkpage entreaties to please come back, no nothing. It's so out of character I just can't help wondering about it - there was some apparent "vandalism" to her page a few days ago, but it was deleted before I saw what it was.

Something's up.

Well, there's a June 1 one, but you're basically correct. If you count that time as 4 AM GMT, indeed that's still May 31 in So. Cal.

I think I'll start a watch-thread in the editors' section.

[Zoloft]

Nah, that's just NuclearWarfare being rude. Fortunately, everyone else on Wikipedia Review is very, very, very polite. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, Nuke really sucks. Just ignore him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I'm beginning to suspect that Cirt is Durova's sock. No, I can't offer any direct, provable link between the two accounts, other than a few general suspicions. Not that I give a rat-shit anyway. This is all pointless, Wikipedia is clearly a pile of damaged goods, and its overseers are a gang of fools.

Lise, dear, it's not that you're a bitch, and it's not that you're arrogant.
You simply don't have all that much talent, or even brains, to back it up.

Oh great, now I'm all nostalgic! I don't think you're alone in your speculation, though I have far less an informed opinion than yourself.

As of now, still no Durova edits at all since May 31. No "missing you"s, no talkpage entreaties to please come back, no nothing. It's so out of character I just can't help wondering about it - there was some apparent "vandalism" to her page a few days ago, but it was deleted before I saw what it was.

Something's up.

Well, there's a June 1 one, but you're basically correct. If you count that time as 4 AM GMT, indeed that's still May 31 in So. Cal.

I think I'll start a watch-thread in the editors' section.

I already suggested digging up Shoemaker's Holiday's cellar. Has he ever appeared at children's parties dressed as a clown? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Milton Roe]

I already suggested digging up Shoemaker's Holiday's cellar. Has he ever appeared at children's parties dressed as a clown? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Well, whoever is keeping her in a hole in the cellar is letting her do Farmville. Probably that-- and letting her get her skin well-moisturized, for... ah....later. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[ulsterman]

I'm beginning to suspect that Cirt is Durova's sock.

Good heavens, no! A thousand times no! Never! Whatever one says about Durova, and I would be prepared to say a great deal, she's not in the same league as Cirt.

[EricBarbour]

Or perhaps a sock she shares with other people, for paid editing.
I'm trying to figure out a pattern, and there are very few clues.

[milowent]

as i learned more about this article and the drama surrounding Herostratus' nomination of it for deletion, i learned that Ken Dickson really is a homophobe and bigot, yet the wiki article had no mention of Dickson's drama lawsuit defending a student who wore a t-shirt saying "HOMOS ROT IN HELL" or something similar (But more Biblical) on some gay pride day. there is no way Cirt could not have known about this coverage -- it may be the only thing significant that dickson was covered for in the the past.

[HRIP7]

Or perhaps a sock she shares with other people, for paid editing.
I'm trying to figure out a pattern, and there are very few clues.

Nah. If there is a pattern, it is that Cirt is a person, and a gifted, distinctive and highly prolific one at that, active in a whole bunch of WMF projects (arbitrator on Wikinews, last time I looked). Not a sock, and certainly not Durova. Cirt spent something like 14+ hours a day editing for months at a time, much of it on Werner Erhard/Scientology/cults. She might conceivably have succumbed to the temptation to make an occasional buck off Wikipedia with PR jobs like the Dickson article or the Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D) article (a puff piece about a gay porn company), but I reckon that's about it.

The interesting thing about the Dickson article that came out in the Herostratus RfA (courtesy of Milowent) was that Dickson had actually attracted some newspaper attention about his anti-gay stance. See Dickson Protects Hate Speech, or this article. Cirt's biography of Dickson referenced none of that coverage. Instead, the article cited sources that barely mentioned Dickson to arrive at that count of 50 references. It also mentioned that Dickson's children graduated as valedictorians from high school, and that Dickson's bosses thought he "was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?" and "did a 'great job' as a law clerk".

That's been a recurrent problem with Cirt's work. Cirt has a tendency to write propaganda, either for or against. Some people do that naively, simply because they don't know the arguments of the other side, but Cirt does it quite consciously and adeptly.

[Jagärdu]

Cirt has a tendency to write propaganda, either for or against. Some people do that naively, simply because they don't know the arguments of the other side, but Cirt does it quite consciously and adeptly.

If by "adept" you mean figuring out how to get away with murder within Wikipedia's own quirky policies and social rules then I agree whole heartedly. In the world outside of Wikipedia I wouldn't call his propaganda techniques particularly adept. He figured out quickly, and perhaps he was even told rather bluntly behind the scenes, that people can get behind someone who hates on Scientology, EST and "cults", but that he'd have to tone it down a bit to get away with it. That he did. He also built social capital by doing monkey work that no one wanted to do themselves, and then in a years time he went from often blocked edit warrior to well respected admin (well respected in some circles at least). Now he's able to get away with horribly biased propaganda style editing because he has the social capital and he knows how to play within the rules enough to keep lazy onlookers from really figuring out what he's up to. I assure you, however, that if he were writing like this in a more professional setting (academia, journalism, etc.) he'd never get away with it -- well with the exception of his more general POV area which journalists are notoriously poor at covering as well I suppose. What it tells us is that someone like Cirt is capable of adeptly exploiting one of Wikipedia's flaws. Cheers to him for that, but that's all it is.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Jagärdu]

Here's a great example of Cirt applying his adept skills within his area of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Llywelyn

Relatively non-notable actress who now has a well referenced entry with 90% of the content focusing on her divorce from Jason Lee and her ensuing comments about the Church of Scientology harassing her. Apparently Jason Lee divorced her, and her lawyer and agent dropped her as a client because she wanted out of Scientology. Who knows if what she says is completely true, completely bunk or somewhere in between but its all pretty much just negative gossip and completely non-notable. A one liner (or not even) somewhere in an entry like ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

might be called for if this is notable enough. Don't get me wrong there is little to like about Scientology but there is no reason to turn an encyclopedia into a gossip blog because of it.

[tarantino]

Ken Dickson was one of those cases where someone has been cited in the local press a ton of times but he's done nothing of importance. Even I could not bring myself to vote keep as a rabid inclusionist. The article was a case of extreme puffery, and I was surprised to learn that its flowery lead sprung into the existence at the very first edit of its creation by Cirt. E.g., The 2nd sentence of the lead was about how Mr. Dickson learned his virtues from his Dad or something like that. Why write it like that? I have no idea.

I tried to rewrite the lead so one could see why he might be notable instead of it being four paragraphs of baloney. That's when I realized there was nothing to write. Essentially the guy is/was a member of the local school board and for one term its chair, and then was a failed candidate in the Republican primary for the local California Senate district, I believe. (He lost the primary earlier this month.) Cirt, who edits at superhuman speeds, was reverting my work lightning fast without discussion outside the edit summary. So I made a quick edit summary that the lead "SUCKS BALLS" to get his goddamn attention. Of course then he complains and drags me to the BLP noticeboard to ask whether BLP applies to edit summaries. Cirt also believed that the article needed to have a large four paragraph introduction because that's what Feature Articles have, though I noted that some things should never be Featured because then the word Feature will mean nothing. Some wikipedia entries deserve to be two paragraphs.

Of course, Ken Dickson is the same AFD where Herostratus mouthed off about the guy's lack of notability, which directly led to his dramafest recall RFA now in progress.

I would not have objected to the article being kept, but it needed an extreme puffery makeover. No intention of bashing Cirt in my post, I have come to enjoy his bot like posts on talk pages, we just disagreed strongly on this.

One of Ken Dickson's opponents in the CA state senate primary was Jeff Stone. He was IDed as a Scientology sympathizer and drew the ire of Operation Clambake and Why We Protest regulars, among others.

Too bad Dickson ended up getting many fewer votes than Stone.