Santorum - it's not about politics at all Options

[carbuncle]

The WP article that has created a little bit of controversy lately, Santorum (neologism), comes with a bit of a puzzler - why is Cirt putting so much work into this topic?

Jayen466 has shown that Cirt has created articles about pro- and less pro-Scientology candidates in elections, but Rick Santorum seems to be a hardcore fundementalist Christian. There doesn't seem to be any clear connection between Santorum and the CoS (at least none that was apparent from a few minutes with Google). So why is Cirt so gung-ho about this article?

You will be surprised to learn that it has something to do with Scientology. It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 5 May 2008. On 7 May 2011, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics.

[edit: I somehow missed the fact that the post was from 3 years ago!]

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Zoloft]

The WP article that has created a little bit of controversy lately, Santorum (neologism), comes with a bit of a puzzler - why is Cirt putting so much work into this topic?

Jayen466 has shown that Cirt has created articles about pro- and less pro-Scientology candidates in elections, but Rick Santorum seems to be a hardcore fundementalist Christian. There doesn't seem to be any clear connection between Santorum and the CoS (at least none that was apparent from a few minutes with Google). So why is Cirt so gung-ho about this article?

You will be surprised to learn that it has something to do with Scientology. It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 6 May. On 7 May, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics.

Well, if that don't flip mah e-meter. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It seems that Dan Savage, who coined the term santorum, got the Scientologists kicked out of a flea market where they were posing as booksellers. Savage's piece was posted on 6 May. On 7 May, Cirt returned from their long WP vacation. On 9 May, Cirt began editing santorum and other Dan Savage-related topics.

I can see why Will Beback likes this guy.

[melloden]

Another clue that Cirt is being paid by Savage or his PR people: n:Dan Savage wins Webby Award for It Gets Better Project (T-H-L-K-D).

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Another clue that Cirt is being paid by Savage or his PR people: n:Dan Savage wins Webby Award for It Gets Better Project (T-H-L-K-D).

I can see why Will Beback likes this guy.


Ever read Dan Savage's column? It's not for the kiddies.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[The Joy]

Expect more kerfluffle over this article now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...date/?hpt=hp_t2

[SB_Johnny]

The Daily Show segment that set off the flap was very well done, I thought.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It seems to me that we automatically assume that Cirt is single-mindedly orienting all his edits to attacks on Scientology. But does he have some other preoccupations, like, you know, the sex thing? He seems to be really big on Dan Savage.

[melloden]

It seems to me that we automatically assume that Cirt is single-mindedly orienting all his edits to attacks on Scientology. But does he have some other preoccupations, like, you know, the sex thing? He seems to be really big on Dan Savage.

Hm, and he did write that article about Corbin Fisher (T-H-L-K-D), too. Perhaps he has pretty high-up connections in the gay community.

Interesting, also, that Cirt manages to dodge SlimVirgin's questions on his talk page and then uses the "good faith" DYK removals to change the topic of the discussion. Dravecky can't possibly be an innocent party here ...

[Tarc]

It seems to me that we automatically assume that Cirt is single-mindedly orienting all his edits to attacks on Scientology. But does he have some other preoccupations, like, you know, the sex thing? He seems to be really big on Dan Savage.

I wouldn't be surprised if Benjiboy is socking around the topic somewhere, too.

I have no liking for Santorum's politics, but I think its pretty vile that a manufactured neologism is being perpetuated with a full article treatment. If Glenn Beck coined the term "Obamalama" as "the frothy mix of cocaine and semen you get from blowing your dealer in the back of limo while doing lines", let's take bets on how long that article would last.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Good one, Cla68. Georgewilliamherbert, who really, really deserves one of those DICK awards, is in a state of high excitement over comparing a bad congressman to anal lube and fecal matter, and he will BLOCK anyone who interferes with this holy quest. Cla68 offers some words of wisdom.

[EricBarbour]

And now it's 71k bytes and 125 references. (At one point, Cirt had it up to 78,390 bytes.)

Yes, GWH was on his high horse today. He and Cirt deserve some kind of special award.
Mental Illness In Defense Of A Minority Viewpoint, perhaps.

[Cla68]

And now it's 71k bytes and 125 references. (At one point, Cirt had it up to 78,390 bytes.)

Yes, GWH was on his high horse today. He and Cirt deserve some kind of special award.
Mental Illness In Defense Of A Minority Viewpoint, perhaps.

GWH never seems to grasp the big picture.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It would be interesting to know who this is. It's clearly a sock of someone who is probably a major player in the subsequent controversy and debate. Are there any of our resident detectives who would care to take a crack at it?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Cirt? Georgewilliamherbert? Will Beback?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I was wondering whether there was some intersection point between the anti-Scientology cabal and the pro-Gay cabal at Wikipedia, so I did a little reading on Scientology's policy toward gays. It's a mixed bag. Wikipedia has an article called "LGBT topics and Scientology." Why such an article is appropriate for an alleged encyclopedia is another question. But according to this L.Ron Hubbard was initially anti-Homosexuality. According to this he had a gay son who committed suicide in 1976. But then there seems to have been some accommodation between Scientologists and gays in recent years.

[Milton Roe]

I was wondering whether there was some intersection point between the anti-Scientology cabal and the pro-Gay cabal at Wikipedia, so I did a little reading on Scientology's policy toward gays. It's a mixed bag. Wikipedia has an article called "LGBT topics and Scientology." Why such an article is appropriate for an alleged encyclopedia is another question. But according to this L.Ron Hubbard was initially anti-Homosexuality. According to this he had a gay son who committed suicide in 1976. But then there seems to have been some accommodation between Scientologists and gays in recent years.

And between Scientologists and Jews. And between Scientologists and Hollywood. If you want to succeed politically in America, there are some accomodations you just eventually have to make. Otherwise you get more and more marginalized, and pretty soon you're a conservative Republican-- as useless as tits on a boar. Or in Rush Limbaugh's case, tits on a bore.

Ms. Palin, if you keep opening your mouth, I'm gunna extend this to you!

[Kelly Martin]

But then there seems to have been some accommodation between Scientologists and gays in recent years.

Of course. Gays have money, and the Scientologists want it. Scientology is fairly willing to compromise basically any of its principles in order to attract people with money.

[LessHorrid vanU]

stuff

...Gays have money...

They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do?

I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible.

Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all.

[lilburne]

stuff

...Gays have money...

They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do?

No one has ever said that homosexuality is confined to the middle classes. Though one might consider whether gay skinhead oiks living on some council estate or in bedstit land have more disposable income than those of their hetro skinhead neighbours. Of course Hubbardistas unlike the Jehovah Witnesses don't operate outside the Londis Store.

I suspect that the Hubbardistas target the lonely and angst ridden as being easy prey, and that sexuality has little to do with it.

[carbuncle]

stuff

...Gays have money...

They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do?

I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible.

Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all.

Why spoil the fun by injecting reality into this? Next you'll be suggesting that the "pro-gay cabal" are just, well, gay. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Why spoil the fun by injecting reality into this? Next you'll be suggesting that the "pro-gay cabal" are just, well, gay. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I guess it's my fault for bringing it up, but I was really not interested in reality. I was speculating about what might motivate a Wikipedian to start the "Santorum (fake disclaimer)" article.

[SB_Johnny]

stuff

...Gays have money...

They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do?

No one has ever said that homosexuality is confined to the middle classes. Though one might consider whether gay skinhead oiks living on some council estate or in bedstit land have more disposable income than those of their hetro skinhead neighbours. Of course Hubbardistas unlike the Jehovah Witnesses don't operate outside the Londis Store.

I suspect that the Hubbardistas target the lonely and angst ridden as being easy prey, and that sexuality has little to do with it.

The set of all gay people includes people with money. I don't think Kelly was trying to imply that all gay people have money.

[Milton Roe]

stuff

...Gays have money...

They do? This is not true of all of those friends of mine who are gay, but perhaps I mix in a lower social class of people than you do?

I do acknowledge that there is this perception that gay people have a greater deal of disposable income in the assumption they do not need to maintain offspring or even long term commitments such as home buying since they are all living a hedonistic life style of casual sex with (very) short term relationships. Which is bollocks. From my friends it appears that wealth itself is the prime reason why people can afford to live such a hedonistic lifestyle, and that the protection that money provides (at least in these more enlightened times) allows some to be more open about their sexual adventures - and, yes, many of them are gay. However, quite a few of my friends are depressed and worried about their lifestyles - but because of their financial situation and not their sexual orientation. Of course, if you cannot afford to go out or simply choose to spend your free time at home with your long term same sex partner then you become invisible.

Some people have money, and some don't. Among both groups there are people who are gay. That is all.

That is not all. Children, of which gay people have disproportionately fewer (even if the number isn't zero), are an endless sink of time and financial resources. I can only presume that if this prime fact about children is not first and foremost in your consciousness, that you must not have any.

This can be remedied. Go to some of your friends who do have children and ask. Or merely observe closely. Unless they are already rich enough to be able to afford housekeepers and cooks and nannies and drivers and other people as parental surrogates in order to remove some of this load-- you will find them being eaten alive.

[HRIP7]

Expect more kerfluffle over this article now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...date/?hpt=hp_t2

There've been some people on the Internet saying Santorum is too close for comfort with the Moonies. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

I think it mostly goes back to this.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Among the members of Congress who also lent their names to Moonie fronts are: Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who were poster boys for Moon's Faith-Based Initiative for Family and Community Revival, a group that many on both the Right and the Left regard as the gatekeeper to President George W. Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative" pots of gold. Another Moon front, the Empowerment Leadership Roundtable, headed by longtime Moon hireling and former aide to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp, David Caprara, prominently featured Santorum and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)

Warning: LaRouche source. Do not attempt to use at Wikipedia.

[gomi]

[Modnote: Very close to tipping this whole thread into the Tar Pit.]

[HRIP7]

The recently created sexual slang template, which includes santorum, has now been protected because of edit-warring.

An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator.

[EricBarbour]

An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator.

Excuse me? There's nothing "unusual" about that. Esp. when SV is involved.

You didn't see this? Or this?

You missed the Giffords editwar? It was nothing but admins.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[lilburne]

Now at ArbCom via Coren. "will they, won't they, join the dance".

[carbuncle]

Coren has now started an arbitration request about "political activism" in regard to this article. Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery). While it is an issue that needs to be addressed in the general sense, leaving Cirt out of it is giving them a free pass to keep doing this kind of thing.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Coren has now started an arbitration request about "political activism" in regard to this article.

JoshuaZ demonstrates how to use WP:AGF in bad faith.

[Gruntled]

The recently created sexual slang template, which includes santorum, has now been protected because of edit-warring.

An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator.

If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do?

[EricBarbour]

Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery).

That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook.

Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS.
Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the
whole case slowly falls apart.

If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[The Joy]

Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery).

That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook.

Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS.
Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the
whole case slowly falls apart.

If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual.

Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter.

There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[HRIP7]

Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery).

That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook.

Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS.
Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the
whole case slowly falls apart.

If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual.

Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter.

There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia in the last 96 hours, plus a few hundred at Commons and elsewhere. That's more than most people do in a month, and no different from any other week.

[Milton Roe]

Cirt, who craftily sidestepped the whole issue to let other people argue about the mess that they had created, will likely not be a party to this proceeding, citing personal reasons (family members having had surgery).

That's a standard part of the "manipulate Wikipedia as you see fit" playbook.

Play the "oh, poor me, I'm sick, my life is falling apart, have pity" crap. People do it because IT WORKS.
Probably utter bullshit, guaranteed to be unprovable. Cirt keeps his/her identity secret, and the
whole case slowly falls apart.

If Arbcom doesn't address THAT, they will have failed. As usual.

Seeing as Cirt will be away dealing with sick family members, she wouldn't need to edit then, would she? She will be too busy. So, the solution is to block her account until she is ready to address the ArbCom on the Santorum matter.

There you go! Free advice! Now, who will block Cirt until she's ready for the trial? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia in the last 96 hours, plus a few hundred at Commons and elsewhere. That's more than most people do in a month, and no different from any other week.

Noooooos!!! One of her family is having surgery, and she needs WP to keep her mind off it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)


I am reminded of the recent case where a death row inmate sued about a lethal injection ingredient he said he might be allergic to. I kid you not.

The state spent quite a lot of your public defense tax money perfecting this argument, and also quite a lot more of it for the opposition, which was (in the end) adopted by the appeals judge, who said basically: Well, suppose it's the worst allergic reaction you can imagine. What would the result be? Pretty much the same: you get the same corpse, but maybe with hives....

Cirt, your appeal has been noted.

[NuclearWarfare]

The recently created sexual slang template, which includes santorum, has now been protected because of edit-warring.

An unusual edit war, given that it involved three admins, one of them an arbitrator.

If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do?

Theoretically at least, administrators are forbidden from editing a page that has been fully protected, unless the edit is noncontroversial and/or backed by substantial consensus. With emphasis on the theoretically.

[Gruntled]

If they're all admins, what good will protecting it do?

Theoretically at least, administrators are forbidden from editing a page that has been fully protected, unless the edit is noncontroversial and/or backed by substantial consensus. With emphasis on the theoretically.

I meant that if they're admins, they must have lots of friends who could unprotect. Maybe even one friend could unprotect it, one of the parties makes an edit, another friend protects it again.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Predictably, a gang of WP's most notorious activists are chiming in, saying that it's a content dispute and that the ArbCom ought to butt out. But one serendipitous effect is that in Will Beback's post, where he is McWhining that the ArbCom should not molest this lovely article, he mentions a different article that upsets him, The Gore Effect (T-H-L-K-D). That article is not nearly as defamatory or Google-bombish, and I sort of enjoyed it. Other than that, it might be construed as analogous.