What is Cirt's Deal?, Did a Google Search for Cirt and Wikipedia and was shocked Options

[rockyBarton]

I have had a few encounters with an admin named Cirt who struck me as really territorial about certain articles. Curious, I did a Google search "Cirt wikipedia" and came up with several threads on this board. After having read them and I am shocked at the history of this editor and left wondering how someone like this can be an adminstrator.

Cirt edits more than 18 hours a day and 7 days a week to boot. How can anyone do that?

Given the number of hours Cirt edits and their anti-cult agenda, has anyone ever been suspicious that they are paid, or that the account is used by more than one person?

Doesn't Wikipedia have rules against this kind of thing?

This post has been edited by rockyBarton:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Cults are like drug dealers. It is relatively quick and easy to rise up the ranks and it needs to be because burn out and atrophy is intense.

A gifted 20 odd year old could easily find themselves in a position near to or beside the cult elite ... even if it might take them a little bit longer and leaving to work out what was going on as they lack alternative 'real life' experience. A bit like a large proportion of Wikipedians, it seems.

It is only after they gain that alternative 'real life' experience that they can then make and judge the cult experience and see it for what it was. Of course, the cults try and stop individuals from gaining that.

The Church of Scientology has very obviously, by their own actions, loaded the entirely 'society versus "the cults"' discussion so as to make it almost impossible to have. Which is perhaps what they wanted.

The same kind of thing goes on on the Wikipedia all the time. If it not possible to seed doubt to disarm an exposé, then sub-consciously even, they seek to make discussion impossible.

If the Church of Scientology are the embodiment of the "masculine form" of cult activity, i.e. hard, aggressive, dominant; the Brahma Kumaris are the equal and opposite but same, the "feminine embodiment" of the cultic principle. And the same kind of dynamics are going on. I believe Cirt, in a previous incarnation, also had a minor dabble in that cult war but left it as 'a bridge too far' in wider society's defence against cultic encroachment on its commonwealth.

I can understand why someone might be motivated to defend society from the encroachment of cultic memes into the realm of common understanding.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[pietkuip]

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

[Kwork]

This guy is really aggressive. My guess is that he was trained by Scientology in the tactics of intimidation by litigation.

I think that anyone who has had an editorial dispute with Pieter Kuiper would find his calling Cirt "aggressive" very amusing.

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

[Somey]

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

In his case, the latter. What we know about Mr. Cirt does tend to suggest an unusually high level of familiarity with (mostly US-based) cults and their methods, which as I've pointed out before is a good thing in most cases. Why he got so worked up in this instance I have no idea, other than the usual reaction of WP'ers to people who try to thwart them in some way.

He probably shouldn't have been made an admin, but I'd even be willing to back off on that statement if he showed some self-restraint in these kinds of situations, and maybe apologized to Mr. Kuiper here (which is obviously not gonna happen).

[Kwork]

Does it mean, if I have a disagreement with Pieter Kuiper and find his editing aggressive, that I should conclude that he has Scientology training? Or does it just mean that he is an aggressive editor?

In his case, the latter. What we know about Mr. Cirt does tend to suggest an unusually high level of familiarity with (mostly US-based) cults and their methods, which as I've pointed out before is a good thing in most cases. Why he got so worked up in this instance I have no idea, other than the usual reaction of WP'ers to people who try to thwart them in some way.

He probably shouldn't have been made an admin, but I'd even be willing to back off on that statement if he showed some self-restraint in these kinds of situations, and maybe apologized to Mr. Kuiper here (which is obviously not gonna happen).

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left? (As for Pieter Kuiper, my experience with him is that when the argument is over there is nothing to motivate an apology.)

[Somey]

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left?

Obviously that depends on who you ask, but I've always figured the number to be around 60 percent. But the Return on Desysopping Investment (RoDI) figure doesn't chart as a straight line, it's more of a steep hockey-stick curve (to borrow a term from the GW debate). That is to say, if you desysop the worst 1 percent, which is only about 20 people, you'll probably solve 50 percent of your admin-related problems (ARPs); if you desysop the worst 5 percent you'll solve 70 percent of ARPs; the worst 10 percent and you'll solve 80 percent of ARPs, and so on.

I could put together a graphic if that would help, but you get the general idea. I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC). It still wouldn't be a proper encyclopedia of course, and you'd still have content-related issues, but those things are probably inevitable.

[gomi]

I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC).

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

[Kelly Martin]

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

Are you kidding? Have you watched how they turn on someone once it becomes obvious that they're going to be thrown out of the treehouse? Those monthly ritual desysoppings would turn into some sort of weird Saturnalia ritual or something, with massive scheming behind the scenes jockeying for who's going to get the whack this month.

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

[Tarc]

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

I have such a man-crush on Boston Rob. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)