Let's check in on the reformed Cirt Options

[carbuncle]

Remember when Cirt said:

accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology. I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly. To begin towards that process, I have gone ahead and removed 66 Scientology-related BLP pages from my watchlist. I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

and

Comment: As stated here diff, I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was weeks ago, and in a different calendar year, so I guess it would be unreasonable of me to hold Cirt to those statements. What has Cirt been up to in the first few days of 2011?

• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Jenna Miscavige Hill
• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Exscientologykids.com
• thanking someone for their work on an L Ron Hubbard book article
• thanking someone for their work on an anti-CoS activist Jenna Miscavige Hill article
• editing a Futurama episode dealing with "Robotology"
• editing the BLP of an actor who did a spoof of Cirt's arch-enemy Tom Cruise
• welcoming someone whose only recent edit (out of a total of two) is a supportive comment for Jenna Miscavige Hill on the talk page of their article
• continuing a conversation on the talk page of an article about a former Scientologist who committed suicide years after leaving Scientology
• supporting the renaming of a page about a Scientology-related medical clinic

Just about the only thing that Cirt did that isn't related to CoS is restoring a removed quote from a movie financed by the Moonies. I'm sure there is nothing wrong with having a highly negative review snippet in its own coloured box:

"Empty-headed Korean war epic produced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church."
—Leonard Maltin[2]

I mean, that's pretty neutral, right? I'm going to add something similar to the Sound of Music and see what kind of reception I get.

Cirt's statements about staying away from CoS stuff seemed to work in that people backed off the ARBSCI enforcement, but if Cirt can't keep away from it by themselves, it may be time for an intervention.

[Silver seren]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch. In the actor's article, his edit had nothing to do with the spoof, but was on an entirely separate part of the article. Welcoming someone is not editing Scientology articles.

Save the first two and the last two, but get rid of the rest, they don't help your argument at all.

As for the Inchon film, the movie was almost completely panned by critics and it is common practice to put a single quote from a critic that generally sums up the rest of the critics' feelings about the film in a box like that, which it does. There's nothing wrong with that edit.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[carbuncle]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch. In the actor's article, his edit had nothing to do with the spoof, but was on an entirely separate part of the article. Welcoming someone is not editing Scientology articles.

Save the first two and the last two, but get rid of the rest, they don't help your argument at all.

As for the Inchon film, the movie was almost completely panned by critics and it is common practice to put a single quote from a critic that generally sums up the rest of the critics' feelings about the film in a box like that, which it does. There's nothing wrong with that edit.

I didn't cherry-pick these edits - they make up most of what Cirt has done since returning from a short wikibreak. Cirt didn't edit these articles at random. Even if the edits he made are not directly related to Scientology, that is the reason Cirt was watching them. You don't think thanking people for editing CoS-related articles is at odds with saying "I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general"?

[taiwopanfob]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Cirt says (s)he will "shift focus" away from Scientology. Well, it doesn't appear to have happened. All of the links carbuncle provides is evidence for a "lack of shift". Rather than editing articles on mollusks or something, Cirt is in fact hanging around the Scientology related ones.

It's like a known bank robber hanging around outside a bank; the manager of the bank would be negligent in his duties if he ignored the behavior.

[lilburne]

You missed a couple it helps if one can poison the ground. However, at least one of the CU clerks has caught on to the ruse.

[thekohser]

Rather than editing articles on mollusks or something, Cirt is in fact hanging around the Scientology related ones.

Best sentence of 2011, thus far!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[wikieyeay]

...okay, the first two and the last two, yes, but you're really stretching with the rest.

Thanking someone isn't editing articles related to Scientology. Futurama is a major stretch.

Given that the episode is a parody of Scientology, is included in the Scientology Portal, etc., it doesn't seem much of a stretch at all.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kudos to Carbuncle for the amusing thread title.

[Infomercial]

What has Cirt been up to in the first few days of 2011?

• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Jenna Miscavige Hill
• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Exscientologykids.com
• thanking someone for their work on an L Ron Hubbard book article
• thanking someone for their work on an anti-CoS activist Jenna Miscavige Hill article
• editing a Futurama episode dealing with "Robotology"
• editing the BLP of an actor who did a spoof of Cirt's arch-enemy Tom Cruise
• welcoming someone whose only recent edit (out of a total of two) is a supportive comment for Jenna Miscavige Hill on the talk page of their article
• continuing a conversation on the talk page of an article about a former Scientologist who committed suicide years after leaving Scientology
• supporting the renaming of a page about a Scientology-related medical clinic

Cirt's statements about staying away from CoS stuff seemed to work in that people backed off the ARBSCI enforcement, but if Cirt can't keep away from it by themselves, it may be time for an intervention.

I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly.

This man is either a liar or extremely insecure. If both is true, he probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place.

Or does he...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-p...41/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-p...41/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that Scott is fingered on whyweprotest as an agent of Scientology's OSA.

Cirt has better press on that forum. Harking back to the affair about the puff pieces for Jeff Stone's opponents in that Riverside County election described here, Kenneth Dickson (T-H-L-K-D) and Joel Anderson (T-H-L-K-D), the same lady comments that she

helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

[RMHED]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

[Lar]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Channeling WMC again?

[RMHED]

I hate to say it, but this is the thanks Scott gets for actually being pro-neutrality.

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Channeling WMC again?

That man-made global warming twat?

Now that's just offensive Lar!

[Somey]

No that's what Scott gets for being a naive twat. Maybe one day he'll learn, but I doubt it.

Well, I thought he showed admirable initiative by registering on the Why We Protest forum to try to explain his actions WRT the Jenna Miscavige article.

Somehow these Anonymous folks, who clearly have their hearts in the right place, have to try to understand that Wikipedia is the real problem here - it's just too easy to abuse if people aren't paying attention, and what people of conscience hope to prevent here is neither the smearing nor the "sanitization" of Scientology itself, it's the use of what has come to be an Acceptable WP Smear Tactic on people who don't warrant it.

It's similar to what Nobs used to call "ideological profiling" - if certain less-than-ethical WP'ers discover that they can bash people with the "Scientologist" label, just as they've bashed people with various other labels in the past, they're almost certainly going to use it on people who have precious little to do with Scientology, if anything.

If you're going to bring down something like Scientology, you need patience, you need creativity, and you need a damn good plan. What you don't need is people sniping at innocents.

[carbuncle]

[removing my overly long criticism of Anonymous because I don't want to derail my own thread. It's about Cirt.]

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Jagärdu]

[removing my overly long criticism of Anonymous because I don't want to derail my own thread. It's about Cirt.]

Good thing because I noticed there were 2 guests and 1 Anonymous user reading the thread ...

I find little of this surprising, and I hope someone at the very least sets Cirt straight.

[carbuncle]

Cirt doesn't appear to be enjoying the attention this thread may have garnered and is on another short wikibreak. On Wikipedia, that is. On Wikimedia Commons, Cirt has been active. They are attempting to have a number of images deleted. Yes, images related to Scientology. You know, that subject form which they were distancing themselves?

I'll quote the reason for deletion and you see if you can figure out what it means:

File:L._Ron_Hubbard_conducting_Dianetics_seminar_in_Los_Angeles_in_1950.jpg
The link provided fails to show that this publication, Los Angeles Daily News appears on this list. It does not. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the newspaper of origin may be misidentified (Los Angeles Daily News instead of Los Angeles Times), but what is "the list"?

[taiwopanfob]

I think the newspaper of origin may be misidentified (Los Angeles Daily News instead of Los Angeles Times), but what is "the list"?

Quick research: we have a Los Angeles Daily News (historic) and a Los Angeles Daily News. The latter is still in business, but the former folded in 1954, and merged with Los Angeles Mirror. This last link is to the current Los Angeles Times, which may explain some of the source stuff at:

http://unitproj.library.ucla.edu/dlib/lat/...ubjectID=222501

Whatever this all may explain, it certainly isn't "the list"...