Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: carbuncle

You may recall http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29740 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29740 discussing Cirt's aggressive anti-Scientology efforts on WP, and the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27899&st=0&p=211295&#entry211295 that Cirt may be a paid editor. A recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain on ANI involving Cirt's creation of Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, which looks like the type of thing an experienced paid editor would write, made me look at the again at the paid editing suggestions.

Cirt recently created a ridiculous puff piece for minor actress Jamie Sorrentini. Turns out that Sorrentini is a former Scientologist whose story is told http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/jamies-adventure/. One of the partners in Daryl Winebar? Its namesake Daryl Sorrentini, who happens to be the mother of Jamie Sorrentini. Is it possible that Cirt's "paid editing" has really just been an extreme extension of their anti-Scientology editing?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Interesting. I hope that one or more of our Reviewers who are yet unbanned at WP (and may even be admins or arbs) pick this up and run with it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Or Cirt is a Sorrentini, or a close friend thereof.

Nice find!

Posted by: carbuncle

So following up my own post, I took a look at the specific articles mentioned as likely paid editing in an earlier thread. Here's my assessment:

Twisted Scriptures - The author, Mary Alice Chrnalogar, is a cult deprogrammer and http://www.apologeticsindex.org/364-mary-alice-chrnalogar.

The Official Razzie Movie Guide - The publication has bestowed many Razzie awards on the movie adaptation of Scientology founder (and science fiction author) L Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth". There's a whole section on it in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Earth_%28film%29#Golden_Raspberry_Awards.

Leaving Springfield - no clue.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Damn, are there no jokes left to tell?

Cutting to the chase, how unusual is it for a confirmed former scientologist not to be identified as precisely such on WP? Are there other known omissions or is Ms. Sorrentini unique in this regard?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4382672/Bart-Simpson-voice-used-to-promote-Scientology.html is probably the missing link.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Nah, it is just his way of owning a topic or topic area saying to them all ... "step back into the Church and I will document it on Wikipedia!". Who is going to pay for anti-cult work?

You may as well say that it looks like a puff piece an experienced Wikipedian would write, which he is.

Now, as for the other cult you mention, The Church of Slutty "Actresses", there are plenty of its adherents rampaging all over the Wikipedia unchecked.

That is a very touchingly written blog piece which captures the madness of it all very well.

Posted by: carbuncle

My assumption is that like similar religious, ethnic, or political campaigns on WP, anti-Scientology editing is a coordinated activity that is discussed offsite or in an email list. I admit that I haven't looked into this a great deal outside of the obvious involvement of Cirt. While I would characterize Cirt's depth of involvement as excessive (or perhaps obsessive) and abusive, I am no fan of Scientology and have no desire to enable their pro-Scientology campaign either.

Seems tenuous, but perhaps that's it.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

As a professional publicist, I can put money down that Cirt (assuming that he wrote it) is clearly a PR/marketing professional. This is one of the finest marketing pieces I've seen in ages -- this is not the work of a hobbyist with an axe to grind.

Posted by: chrisoff

I agree. Reminiscent of all his cheese cookbook articles, for example. He writes as if he is a promoter. Most of what he writes promotes something.

Posted by: Peter Damian

It's completely incredible. On a project like Wikipedia, preventing possible conflict of interest should be the most important priority, overriding everything else. But behold the discussion at ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=375595056#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain

It's called 'disruption by user Njsustain'. That's right. The person being accused of disruption is the person who brought the issue to light. And behold the line of idiotic or corrupt Wikipedians lining up with cudgels to bash the complainer.

I'm physically sick.

And what about this

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

The name calling originates here:



If we are to get into EVula's teeny-weeny brain, we would see no problem in the scenario where someone wakes up one morning and, out of the blue, writes an extensively-researched article about an obscure three-year-old restaurant located inside an obscure hotel in New Brunswick, N.J.

As for the New York Times' restaurant reviews in the article - it is bullsh*t. The coverage is not from the Wednesday food section of the Times -- where the restaurant critics are brutally honest and often negative -- but from the Sunday N.J. regional section, where all of the restaurant reviews are positive. Anyone who lives in the New York metropolitan section and reads the Times would recognize that immediately.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Therefore, let us find some criticism of Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, and twist Cirt's COI knobs a bit.

Posted by: Peter Damian

The discussion here is also astonishing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)&oldid=375607869#Restaurant_notability

How do you point out the bleeding obvious to people who are incapable of appreciating its bleeding obviousness?

Oh and someone has spotted the false claim award. Well spotted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&diff=375598707&oldid=375571044



Disappointing but hardly unexpected.

[edit] And Jimbo even brings in Mzoli's meats:

Posted by: Milton Roe

What a pile of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mzoli%27s&oldid=158512139. There's absolutely nothing on the stub Jimbo started to indicate he had any interest in any of this at all, at the time. All the stuff suggesting that Mzoli's is the pivotal center of post-appartheid reconstructionism was added by Jimbo-toadies later, and heartily endorsed by Jimbo when, after a few days, the thing was inevitably up for deletion under non-notable and NOT:TRAVELGUIDE. But he didn't start that way.

The stub, after Jimbo started and got through with it (total of two edits) was this:

Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa.

That's all Jimbo wrote, PLUS put in two links to two blogs, which certainly were not WP:RS reliable sources.

Posted by: cookiehead

I had a little run in with "Cirt" on some biography of some old Werner (Engerhart?) or other. What a nutjob. And Cirt isn't playing with a full deck either.

Completely irrational watchdogging. Not unlike the Scientology cult watchdogs that this Cirt character is pulling a Joan of Arc act against.

Cirt is a SPA account. I thought that was not allowed on the Wikipedia?

Posted by: Jagärdu

Ha. Cirt is busy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&diff=375668578&oldid=375666063. Clearly he has no stake in this! Phew, and to think we all thought he had something to gain from a positive review. To think we all thought ... how silly.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Good Grief. That "article" is the very definition of "non-encyclopedic".

Jon

Posted by: cookiehead

Cirt's doing a public service by saving us from Thetan Soup? Shouldn't this thorough editor who never missed an opportunity to inject Scientology trivia about current, former, and bicurious 'Tologists into articles? The owner's recent dabblings in Thetan Soup recipes at the local Chef El Ron cooking school must be included!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&action=historysubmit&diff=375670269&oldid=375669385

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/d/daryl-sorrentini.html

Posted by: EricBarbour

The Daryl Wine Bar article is an ugly, ugly joke--as is Cirt's heavyhanded involvement.

Let's compare its current length (19,714 bytes) to some far, far more famous restaurants.

The 21 Club. World-famous, mentioned in endless novels, movies, TV shows, etc.
Length of WP article: 12,046 bytes.

The Four Seasons Restaurant. Also world-famous.
Length of WP article: 5,876 bytes.

Gallagher's Steak House.
Length of WP article: 3,836 bytes.

Chasen's.
Length of WP article: 3,790 bytes.

Barney's Beanery.
Length of WP article: 3,883 bytes.

Musso & Frank Grill.
Length of WP article: a measly 2,170 bytes.

Rainbow Bar and Grill.
Length of WP article: 5,684 bytes.

Cirt is corrupt. And any admin, such as EVula or that idiot Cyclopia, who supports Cirt's lunatic crusade
is just as guilty as he is. (need to look into EVula's other dirty tricks.)

This situation, esp. the AN/I attack on Njsustain, reeks of off-wiki canvassing and other crap.

They are ruining Wikipedia, by allowing this kind of transparent bullshit to continue.
(Not that anyone in the WMF seems to care, business as usual.)

(edit): oohhhh! Looky look, Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=375564456&oldid=375547257!!! And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=next&oldid=375564456!......laffy laffy laffy!

Posted by: milowent

I just stumbled upon the Daryl's AfD, and the article struck me as so blatant (just like http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29887&st=0' was), I knew there would be a thread here.

I wrote what I thought was a decent little stub yesterday on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanko_Park, a mall in eastern Turkey that was highlighted in a NY Times article over the weekend (essentially how Turkey is sucking in Syrian/Arab customers with Western-style shopping).

Then I read that Daryl's crapola and got pissed.

Posted by: ulsterman

I think you mean Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D). He has some Scientology connection, which is of course Cirt's specialty. Indeed, there is a separate and utterly unnecessary article Scientology and Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D). It was (surprise) started by Smee, which is one of Cirt's former accounts.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Cirt said "no to all questions" -- including the ones about "eating there" and the like.

Then why did he/she/it create the article?

Anyways, without knowing Cirt's "real life" identity, it is impossible to verify if he/she/it is even speaking honest answers to those questions. Jimbo must be aware of this problem, so all the dripping "good cop" politeness and the rest is as big a sham as Cirt him/her/itself is. (Like airport security people who say "Either I will shove my hand up your ass, or you can have that guy over there do it. Isn't choice wonderful?")

There is more than enough evidence that suggests that Cirt is in conflict of interest with many articles (too many coincidences), and is generally a propaganda account (the common element). At this point, given Cirt's unknown identity, and the damage this kind of behavior can inflict, reasonable men must turn the table: the onus should be on Cirt to prove they are not in conflict. If that is unacceptable, or even impossible, then Cirt should be shown the door.

Posted by: thekohser

I have had many discussions with Cirt electronically (Google Chat and e-mail), and the position he maintains (odd to me as it seems), is that he is fervently (almost to the point of panic) opposed to the Church of Scientology. He monitors people and organizations who have ever been "threatened" by the CoS. He then believes he is "assisting" or "rewarding" those victimized people by giving them the "gift" of coverage in Wikipedia.



That, in itself, is a problem that anyone on Wikipedia who cares about Wikipedia being misused should be able to recognize. Now, whether people like Jimmy Wales honestly care about Wikipedia being misused, or whether they merely wish to appear that they care about Wikipedia's misuse... that's another level altogether.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Well maybe Cirt likes to mix business with pleasure? Of course if he were approaching others who have these connections to anti-Scientilogy and suggesting that he would take a donation for PR work on Wikipedia I feel like we'd know about that by now. I'm beginning to sway back to the POV that he's just completely nuts. His http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyclopia#Thank_you on Cyclopia's talk page also points in that direction. Apparently the policy discussion at WP:CORP is just another venue for others to "attack" Cirt. Good grief.

Posted by: Avirosa

It's little more than an informal 'free masonary' where 'belongers' give a hand to other 'belongers' of their group. In Cirt's case it's ex Sci, but there is just as likely similar 'puffing' going on across Wikipedia for every conceivable 'belonger group'. I don't understand all the hyperbole here about Cirt - surely he/she is just doing (once the rubicon of actually editing has been crossed) the only thing that makes half sense, and playing Wikipedia to maximise your own world view. What's notable is what I say it is, what's COI is that with which I don't agree, what's NPOV is what supports my world view etc.

A.virosa

Posted by: cookiehead

well at least the godking gets it. seems like a reasonable man. also knows how to take humor, which is funny because its true, and not get upset by it. A sign of high intelligence from the welshman.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&action=historysubmit&diff=375711925&oldid=375711564

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&action=historysubmit&diff=375711564&oldid=375709130

Although he does contradict himself, as my recommendation has obviously been productive and necessary to motivate said King to get to the point of the matter.

That, and Daryl's is no mizzoli's meat. It's not run by a Sci refugee so not notable....

Posted by: thekohser

I see a lot of my old 2007 style in Cookiehead's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cookiehead&oldid=375692282#AGF!

Posted by: thekohser

http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant, Cirt. A couple dozen people per day were looking at the promotional article, but now http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant are looking at the deletion hate-fest surrounding the article.

Maybe you ought to reconsider this crusade of yours to "help" victims of Scientology through Wikipedia article creation?

Posted by: cookiehead

well, we all have our inspirations, greggers, and you are at the top of any list of Wikipunditry. One catches more flies with laughs than with boring old statements of the obvious. But let's not go to Dramatica extremes.

You've got to charm them to make them learn, and jimby is no exception to the rule. That and he's probably worried about all those nasty Elronnies putting Thetans in his iced lattes if he keeps letting Cirt run amok. The man is going to wear himself out. Perhaps he should be reassigned to the anti-Larouche or pro-Peta team to give him a break from saving the world from Science Fiction as self-help

And please please eat at Daryl's. Support your local refugee!

Posted by: Peter Damian

Somewhat churlish of Cirt to block Ellipse Records, I thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellipsegrouprecords

Given the circumstances, anyway.

Your comment on the AfD was the funniest thing I have read for ages.



The problem is, I didn't see any of the inhabitants laughing.



[edit]
Wow, The Ivy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ivy only gets one paragraph.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Yeah the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ellipsegrouprecords&diff=prev&oldid=375681793 in his edit summary is pretty amzing. If you're Cirt how do you block someone for "advertising or promotion" in middle of all this?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Do not forget the article itself!

http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant

Posted by: carbuncle

Check out the http://stats.grok.se/en/201007/Jamie%20Sorrentini on Jamie Sorrentini. Coincident with the publication of the blog post linked earlier, the newly created article got a two day bump and then settled into a handful of hits per day until yesterday when it suddenly jumped up to 1.8k. I don't think WR readers are solely responsible for that, and I don't think the link has been made yet on WP in the Daryl Wine Bar AFD. Interesting.

Posted by: Jagärdu

The idea that Wikipedia Review readers would be responsible for 1,800 hits in one day ... that's funny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt#DYK_for_Jamie_Sorrentini explains it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

The only editor other than Cirt who's been making significant edits to the Daryl's article is Freakshownerd (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

After looking at FSN's contribs, I am beginning to suspect that FSN is a sock of an experienced Wikipediot.
This account is only 2 months old, yet has created a lot of lengthy articles.
He also spends a lot of time editing controversial articles. Favorite subjects include obscure wildlife
reserves and state parks in Florida; the Gaza flotilla raid; Alvin Greene; obscure small record labels;
Resignation of Shirley Sherrod ‎; Andrew Breitbart; Phillip E. Johnson; Peter Duesberg;
and most recently, Daryl's, plus the David Drake (chef) BLP. (Well, is Mr. Drake "notable" or not? I think not.)

I always get suspicious when I see an account that makes lots of pointless, lengthy edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_McCollum&diff=prev&oldid=373452589.
That, believe it or not, is a typical Freakshownerd edit. Except for Cirt's obsession with Scientology and
admin duties, these two accounts display remarkably similar patterns, like paid editors who "grind"
pointless edits in order to inflate their editcounts.
Don't be surprised if someone suddenly nominates FSN for adminship.

Posted by: HRIP7

Greg has given a plausible answer; although Cirt denies it.

By the way, the reason Cirt wrote that http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29887 is evidently http://forums.whyweprotest.net/26-think-tank/jeff-stones-opponent-ken-dickson-58560/. Anonymous http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3542143-senate-candidate-jeff-stone-and-scientology.

Posted by: cookiehead

Well, Daryl's was saved! Hallelujah! (not sure how they say that in Scientology Church. "Travolta!"?)

Meanwhile, the prolific and venerable John Vandenburg has recommended that the doubly-notable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_(restaurant) should be merged into the article of the hotel in which it resides.

Hmm.....Daryl's Wine Bar and Scientologist Refugee Farm is also located in a well-known hotel. So I'm sure Vandy would want to merge this pedestrian grape juice bar into the main hotel article?

http://www.theheldrich.com/

I'm sure this suggestion will be made shortly.

This will surely be a new topic of progressive, chicken or egg, discussion on Hotel Bars superceding the notability of Hotels?

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: cookiehead

That was odd the first time and irritating the second time. Probably not unlike my Review contributions. Could you get that image size down to a dull roar? Thanks, uncle!

Posted by: carbuncle

I'm sure Cirt gets the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org. I wish I knew how to make images smaller here - can someone clue me in?

Posted by: cookiehead

This just in the from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Restaurants_in_New_Jersey (who have welcomed Daryl's with open arms!):


We'd like to welcome Daryl's Wine Bar, a great place to meet vulnerable chicks who have been hurt before (El Ron, you scoundrel!) to our prestigious "Restaurants in New Jersey" category. Only a select few restaurants merit this inclusion, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody%27s_Luncheonette

Regards,
The Restaurants in New Jersey category


P.S.
You too can put your personal website as a sole reference for an article, and upload photos out of your family scrapbook! Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that anyone can edit to keep track of their favorite restaurants and family photos!


PS2: Other winners in our exclusive category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surf_Taco ("cult following", none of whom work for any WP:RS apparently)

Posted by: HRIP7

At least DGG rewrote the thing before it was kept.

Posted by: cookiehead

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

Oh my. Can you say "overweight"? or even "WTF does a restaurant have to do with this article on New Jersey wine? They maybe serve Renault?" (in the See Also section).

Posted by: jayvdb

I was looking at that AFD at the same time as the Renaissance article, and was thinking that The Heldrich would make a good merge target. I was a bit surprised to find there were not many readily available sources about The Heldrich. If it had been deleted, Mzoli's was sure to be renom'd, as most of its sources are also local. That would have been interesting to watch. Oh well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lazarus_Effect_%28film%29 will have to do. p.s. it is Vandenberg

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Use the copy stored on commons then adjust the number of px after the final slash in the thumbnail url.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Wikipe-tan_in_navy_uniform2_transparent.png/220px-Wikipe-tan_in_navy_uniform2_transparent.png


But no, generally speaking I don't believe there's any forum markup to expose the img width attribute and effect scale reduction by the browser (which tends to come out looking like shit anyway). Maybe Somey could be persuaded to install imagemagick.

Posted by: Somey

There's [imgx] to limit a large image to 100% of the table-cell width (so that it doesn't expand the table to where you have to scroll horizontally)... And ImageMagick actually is installed, but if we allowed people to enter their own preferred width attribute, pretty soon we'd have Awbrey posting those little GIF smileys at about 10 million times their original size.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Better switch to svg smileys in that case. You know, so the contours remain smooth.

Posted by: Moulton

That's one of the unfortunate consequences of operating the site under http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30298&st=0&p=246247&#entry246247.

Posted by: HRIP7

Meanwhile, Wikipedia's drive to cover New Jersey's standouts of the year has moved on to the Pithari Taverna (T-H-L-K-D).

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Impossible! There is something worse in New Jersey than Snooki...and it is Cirt!

Posted by: Somey

Hmm... Until someone finds the (not-so-obvious) Scientology connection here, I'd say we have to assume he's either being paid for this article, or it's a feint to cover the other restaurant advertisements, i.e., "see, I write lots of these! I just happen to like the food!"

Personally, I can't stand Greek food, so I can't give him a pass for this one.

Posted by: tarantino

See also Light Horse Tavern (T-H-L-K-D). It is misdirection aimed at reviewers and Scilons.

Posted by: Somey

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=377059862, which I assume he gets a cash bonus for.

And here's the one for the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=376983055... at least that one contains an historical reference...

Posted by: EricBarbour

And once again, regardless of how historical or good the Light Horse Tavern is, this whole situation smells.

The Light Horse gets an article of length 11,066 bytes, while far more famous
restaurants get http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30246&view=findpost&p=245492--why? Because they're not in New Jersey?

Posted by: thekohser

If Cirt is not being paid for these, he or she is one of the stupidest Wikipedia editors on Earth.

Posted by: HRIP7

No. Cirt couldn't give a shit about what people at WR think. It is misdirection aimed at fellow Wikipedians, just in case there should ever be any scrutiny of her actions. It enables her to play the innocent victim, pursued by mad conspiracy theorists -- who should ideally be site-banned, for not assuming good faith and pursuing a vendetta against her.

It's a strategy that works handsomely. And she doesn't mind doing some extra work, because she loves writing anyway, and is far better at it than the average Wikipedian. That's one thing you have to grant Cirt. She can pull a well-written article out of the hat in less time than it takes most other Wikipedians to find one source in google books.

She is a bit like an indispensable secretary -- slightly round the bend, but no one would like to sack her, because she does such good work. And in a way, her heart is in the right place. She does her advocacy out of compassion for the victims of cults. That gives her a moral authority and integrity that people, on some level, respect.

Posted by: Moulton

Um, Greg. Wikipedia isn't on Earth. It's in Cloud Cuckooland.

Posted by: DoctorHver

Hum, make sense to me I wonder if Jimbo is the first monarch of Wikipedia Cloud Cuckooland?

Posted by: rockyBarton

This Article created by Cirt yesterday has been nominated for deletion. He seems to be working feverishly. People seem to be really impressed with his ability to add content and format to the article but are oblivious to how that same work is furthering his obsession

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia&dir=prev&action=history

Posted by: Somey

Jeez...

I guess aside from the fact that it's pure navel-gazing from WP's perspective, it's actually a fairly good summary of what's happened over the years. It would have made for a pretty good WR blog post... In fact, if they delete it, we should probably run it here! This is the more appropriate venue, after all. (The article could stand to be a little shorter, of course.)

Posted by: EricBarbour

It was created at 1pm on August 23rd, and by
7pm on the 25th, Cirt had taken it to 40,000 bytes
plus 66 references.

That's not "editing", that's paranoid schizophrenia.

Posted by: thekohser

I notice the article says, "Author Jonathan Zittrain noted in his 2009 book published by Yale University Press, The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It, 'as Wikipedia grew it began to attract editors who had never crossed paths before, and who disagreed on articles they were simultaneously editing.'"

Zittrain also spent a http://books.google.com/books?id=DL3rx393NIQC&lpg=PA140&ots=upNovaMLkS&dq=zittrain%20wikipediareview&pg=PA140#v=onepage&q=zittrain%20wikipediareview&f=false of that book discussing Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: Moulton

Posted on the article's talk page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia#Suggestion

Cirt, I suggest you copy this article to Google Knol.

You can copy/paste from a fully rendered HTML page directly into the WYSIWYG editor on Google Knol and most (if not all) of the copy & paste contents will be replicated without distortion of the layout. If necessary, you can drop down to HTML editing to fix up any rendering anomalies. You can also select from among three different licensing options for your signed articles on Google Knol.

Generally speaking, any single-author article that generates controversy and conflict on Wikipedia is better published as a signed article by a self-identified author on Google Knol. There, you can take ownership and personal responsibility for your article, invite selected co-authors to collaborate with you to present a selected point of view, or open the article to anonymous or pseudonymous unmoderated editing comparable to the Wikipedia model. In either event, there is a space for comments at the bottom of articles on Google Knol, functionally equivalent to Wiki talk page threads (like this one).

http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton (http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted by: timbo

Cirt wasn't the creator, he single-handedly rescued this from Articles for Deletion... It was an amazing piece of work, actually, take a look at the different versions if you don't believe me... I moved from being a "DELETE" vote to giving him a barnstar in half a day... That dude can write...


t

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

He should...he's being paid to do it.

Posted by: thekohser

I notice that the website for the Daryl Wine Bar in New Jersey hasn't really figured out how to http://www.darylwinebar.com/menu.html. Maybe Cirt could help them out by posting the menu on their Wikipedia article.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Interesting hypocrisy by Cirt, who opposes a user's RFA on the basis that said user has a "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=392777639&diff=prev".

How much nerve does it take to say this, having passed one's own RFA by failing to disclose one's own "history of sanctions"?

Posted by: thekohser

OMG, there's hypocrisy on Wikipedia?!

Posted by: rockyBarton

It appears that Cirt’s shiny new article is being nominated for deletion based on BLP and Coatrack issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Eh, phooey! Cirt is such a bore!

Posted by: carbuncle

Cirt has left notices about the AFD at a dozen Wikiprojects, not to mention user pages. How does Cirt manage to get away with such overt canvasing?

Posted by: Abd

That AfD was doomed before it started. The lawsuit is notable, and there is enough detail on it to warrant an article.

However, it is also true that the article is a coatrack. For example, see Cirt's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&diff=394919031&oldid=394917090 It shows the existing text in the Aftermath section regarding Erhard's daughter, Celeste. The opening sentence of that section is "In a lawsuit related to similar assertions made in the ''60 Minutes'' broadcast, by journalist John Hubner of the San Jose Mercury News, Werner Erhard's daughter Celeste Erhard sued Hubner and the newspaper seeking [[United States dollar|US$]]2 million, in a case filed in San Francisco Superior Court."

The statement is that this lawsuit is "related." How? "Similar assertions"? One person files a lawsuit against Does 1-20 for X, for a series of alleged torts. Daughter of the person files a lawsuit against someone else for a different set of torts (including alleged broken promises) How is this "related?" sufficiently to give it such prominence? Does the source make that statement? Is there more than one source for this relationship? It looks like Erhard and his daughter are not really connected (that was part of the scandal, in fact, that he'd abandoned his family).

On the Talk page, Cirt defends his article, "Background is appropriate, in order to ground the reader in an otherwise convoluted and confusing history involving Werner Erhard and his various organizations and successor companies."

That would be true for a limited amount of background. This article is full of material that is not actually about the lawsuit, material that, as to detail, belongs in Werner Erhard, Landmark Education, and related articles. What is missing here is an attempt to find consensus, it's quite visible in the Talk page "discussion."

However, so many times I've seen a motive to present facts in a way as to remove what is "confusing" that results in the presentation of a POV. POVs are simple, facts are confusing! Presenting facts clearly and in such a sequence that the reader can discern the situation is an art, but conflicting factions can usually agree as to what the facts are, and Wikipedia sourcing guidelines generally dictate what can be -- and should be -- included, somewhere. The situation with Erhard and Landmark has spawned a series of detail pages, which is proper, it's a way to avoid undue weight, but if each of these pages becomes a coatrack, with the same "facts" -- or opinions -- stated over and over, maintenance has been greatly complicated.

These conflicts can get truly nasty, and when an organization is involved, one being severely criticized, as Landmark has been (rightly or wrongly), socking is to be expected, if the wiki process doesn't seek consensus. Might happen anyway....

Posted by: Abd

Well, almost all the notifications were of users who had edited the page, and the nominator really should have notified those people (it's a courtesy). AfD is supposed to be biased toward keep, and notifying the people who have worked on an article will often insure a base of Keep comment. Unless the work has been heavily to remove bias. From the history, Cirt could be confident that notifying the editors who have assisted him would not accomplish that. They were all, however, trivial edits. The only balancing editor there was the nominator.

The nominator, DaveApter (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not sophisticated. Not quite an SPA, but a heavy interest in Landmark Education.

Lotso Wikiprojects notified, including some very weird ones, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Normally, notifying WikiProjects is okay, but ... I'm suspecting that WikiProjects have been selected for some kind of expectation of support for the article. It could be subtle; but it is suspicious that a project like this is notified, when, on the face, it has nothing to do with the article.

There is are some user notifications that are suspicious, those of Magioladitis (T-C-L-K-R-D) , PM800 (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Looking about, I see that Cirt has been heavily involved in editing the Werner Erhard, and one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard&diff=277221952&oldid=277210276 popped out at me. He reverted an editor who was right to remove the information. It has little or nothing to do with Werner Erhard. Question is, is the award Erhard received notable? Who else received these awards, and do their articles, if there are any, have such a notification about what happened to Yoghesh Gandhi? I'm seeing signs of POV editing on both sides, likely, but it would take a lot more work to be sure. The inclusion of every mindless detail that can be sourced seems to be a Wikipedia trait. It's a problem with BLPs, as lots of us know!

Well, since I've seen it, here is the poop. According to the very reputable source Wikipedia, Ghandi Memorial International Foundation, which looks "shady as hell," a term of art, gave the "Mahatma Gandhi Humanitarian Award" to these people:

Werner Erhard
Joan Baez
Shirley Temple Black
David Packard
Hogen Fukunaga ... and there were other awards to
Bill Clinton and
Ryochi Sasakawa. In addition, the U.S. Senate hosts a report that the Ghandhi Peace Award was also given to Michael Gorbachev and Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela.

How this worked seems reasonably visible from the Senate report. Sasakawa, a Japanese tycoon, a year after receiving the award, gave the Foundation $500,000. Then, in 1996, Yoghesh Gandhi was able to gain a photo op for Fukunaga with Bill Clinton.

Plus the Foundation gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee (returned in 1996, and this was part of a huge scandal that I remember from the time.) The Senate report claims that this money came from Yoshio Tanaka, another Japanese tycoon, who also has an "Earth Aid International Foundation," and this was all aimed at providing more access for Fukunaga and thus more money for Yoghesh Gandhi to obtain and use.

Okay, there are some obvious possibilities here. In 1988, the award was given to a series of people, and it appears that the goal was to shine up the award and the Foundation. I rather doubt that the prominent recipients of the award paid for it! Warner Erhard was given the award because Gandhi believed that he would be considered an obvious humanitarian, and it appears that the Hunger Project was specifically mentioned with the award.

Unfortunately, Werner Erhard still cites the Gandhi award as evidence of his accomplishments, when, in fact, he's far more notable than that award.... Shooting himself in the foot, certainly as far as his Wikipedia article is concerned! Since http://www.wernererhard.com/controversy.html (indirectly, through citing a book that refers to it), since it's been mentioned so much, there is hardly any way to keep both this out and the balancing fact that discredits the award. Which could be much better stated than in the article. The award was a scam, but given to people with real accomplishments, some of them. In order to make the award look more legitimate. If it had just been given to Fukunaga and Sasakawa, who would have noticed?

Cirt was roughly correct. But the presentation of the facts is not likely to give a clear picture to the reader of what actually happened.

I notice that the award to David Packard isn't mentioned in the Packard article. But it is mentioned http://www.hp.com/retiree/history/founders/packard/dave.pdf.

Posted by: HRIP7

Cirt is up to her old tricks again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&action=historysubmit&diff=396195934&oldid=396195678. Of course, guess who placed all those "warnings" ...

Posted by: pietkuip

On Commons, he tagged photos of the covers of the Book of Mormon for copyright infringement... - it is just a few words, that never were copyrighted anyway. Looks mostly like harassment of the contributors.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Hilarious -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466&oldid=397087792#Cirt

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremystalked&diff=prev&oldid=400459840, doing the same with JeremyStalked, whom I believe I have seen posting here.

Posted by: Lar

Of course harassing people on Commons via allegations of copyvio isn't something you'd know anything about, is it?

Posted by: pietkuip

You abused your admin buttons to block me when I made deletion requests of your uploads. Those DRs were in line with Commons policy. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CedarPoint_Maverick_TrackLayoutDSCN9523.JPG ended in delete; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Croton_Dam_Muskegon_River_Dscn1100_cropped.jpg was kept by your cronies. But it is good to have such an example, to counter the deletionism on Commons.

Posted by: Lar

Your blocks, and they are legion, have nothing to do with your deletion requests, as requests. Merely with your combative nature. You really shouldn't criticize others while your own house is in such disarray.

Posted by: pietkuip

I do not have much to do combat with. But you have all these hats and buttons. When I made a DR of your uploads, you knocked me down with a block. Abuse of power.

And back to the subject - "combative" fits Cirt.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Hey Lar, if you wanna bitch Kuiper out (and he does deserve a little bit),
you ought to open a new thread.

This is exactly how Cirt deals with criticism--by sleazy backstabbing and manipulation.
If an opponent does not have a warning or block, Cirt will sometimes manufacture one.
It's a tired old story, and obviously Cirt is "special", because he-she gets away with it all
day long. If admins really cared, they would put an end to Cirt's endless assaults on
people like Erhard and various Scientologists. It appears that no one cares--except here.

If anyone should be depressed about this state of affairs, it should be you, Lar.

Posted by: Lar

I just find it funny to hear Kuiper complaining (as I find it funny to hear Wikifan123456789 complaining), because it's so hypocritical.

And ya, I'm depressed. But I'm (commons-wise) more depressed about the policy ( to require things like permissions and proof of age when it seems prudent... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Support ) struggling to get adopted than I am about Kuiper's misstatements.

I keep thinking I should just give up, there's no hope, the whole thing's unfixable. But it does get a bit better here and there from time to time.

Posted by: HRIP7

Note Cirt's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#Removing_sourced_positive_material_from_a_BLP_page_.28Jamie_Sorrentini.29 with Scott MacDonald a few days ago. Cirt backed down in the end.

And there is currently an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401775963#BLP_violations_by_User:Delicious_carbuncle between Cirt and Delicious Carbuncle.

While Delicious Carbuncle was in the wrong there as regards the BLP source, he is right for much of the rest. The thing is that in a way this comes a year or two too late -- Cirt is not quite the out-of-control POV warrior any more that s/he was then, and has been far more reasonable of late.

Posted by: HRIP7

That Commons poll is indeed depressing. The lack of hope is the logical and inevitable result of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png and the projects' decision-making structure, whose failings Scott http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17620&mode=threaded&pid=95681 2.5 years ago:

Posted by: carbuncle

You misread what happened in the dispute between Scott and Cirt. Cirt had managed to stymie any effort to substantially remove obvious puffery from Sorrentini's bio. When Cirt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=401209263 about sourcing at the reliable sources noticeboard, the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Sorrentini&diff=prev&oldid=401209447 they did was remove the disputed items so that the article was not tagged with a "POV dispute" template when people went to look at it. Otherwise, I'm sure it would have been removed when Scott gave up arguing about the details of an article that really shouldn't exist anyway. Meaning no offence, this is a minor TV actor with no significant credits, like literally thousands working in television at any one time.

I really do not wish to enable Scientologists to return to WP to push their point of view, but Cirt is being allowed to get away with all kinds of nonsense as WP's anti-Scientology attack dog. There are a number of articles that exist simply to label some otherwise unremarkable business or person as connected to the CoS. This is a systematic use of WP as the classic "organ of revenge", even if it is "far more reasonable of late".

Posted by: HRIP7

I note Cirt has taken you to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=402148019#Delicious_carbuncle.

Sad, but not surprising.

Posted by: spp

Looks like he is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=402173461 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads&diff=prev&oldid=402153489 with a non-neutral http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=402153478.

I would post this on the AE request but I would probably be called a sock puppet or something. It is glaringly obvious what Cirt, Smee, Smeeglova, Curt von whatsisname has been doing for the last 5 years but it seems to align with the house POV which means nothing gets done about it. So much for a neutral encyclopedia. Why did I waste so much time editing? (And why do I continue to get attracted to all the dramahz...).

Posted by: spp

And DC gets smacked by someone canvassed. Cirt: Free to do what they have been doing.

Color me surprised.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I'm tempted to dig up some old WP propaganda about how WP's "neutral" approach was capable of solving every political problem of mankind, and was possibly a new discovery in How To Do Things. A main bit of propaganda in 2006 being the idea that SCIENTOLOGY had an article on WP that EVEN SCIENTOLOGISTS were happy with. So everybody was happy with WP's neutral ways. Yes, they were.

Well, I guess that was a rather overinflated or overoptimistic claim, now, wasn't it?

Where's my apology from WP, for their smugness? They used Scientology in their own wiki-propaganda, for a very, very long time.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Uh, because it beats the crap out of watching American Idol?......

Whoever Cirt really is (and there's been some talk that the Cirt account is being shared by two or more people), he/she/they will get one hell of a bullshit-filled memoir out of all this. Too bad there's no action, singing or dancing, or crime---without one of the "traditional" grabbers, it all translates into poor book sales. CIRT: The Most Boring Nerd Memoir Ever Written!

Posted by: Peter Damian

That's an amazing demographic. The box for the older age group is 31-85, that's a total of 54 years lumped into a single category. 25% of editors under 18. 50% under 22. Did someone question the other day whether there were really 'hordes of teenage admins'? And 75% 30 or under. 75% of all Wikipedians have no partner. 90% are male. kind of plays up to the stereotype.

Posted by: thekohser

What is the significance of the bar sections in blue versus those in yellow?

Yet another example of the fine research output from Wikimedia http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28069&hl=bridgespan and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=29374&view=findpost&p=233500 "Bridgespan Partners".

Yes, you'll want to check out those links.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I am married.
I am well over 31.
I am not Jewish.
I am not gay.
I have never worn women's clothing, nor been sexually attracted to animals or small children.
I do not have aspergers, strong feelings on global warming, or an obsession with Intelligent Design.
I am not terribly interested in the second amendment to the US constitution, and for the most part I find pornography aesthetically dull.


So, you can see why I wonder if I really belong in a Wikimedia community.

Posted by: carbuncle

Everyone knows that graphs should have a bump in the middle. It's called standard divination. I thought you were supposed to know stuff like this?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

It's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=402250739#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt, and Will Beback comes riding to Cirt's defense. Jayen466 made Cirt canvass.

Posted by: HRIP7

Same here. I am even a dad.

I must say that those demographics have made me reassess what I can reasonably hope to achieve in Wiki[m/p]edia projects. Not much, basically.

Posted by: spp

And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Delicious_carbuncle shows that DC's tactic of shedding light on a dark situatiion worked. Some of the admins are getting a clue

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Interesting. I'm a latecomer to this thread, and sometimes I can't tell the players without a program, so may I ask a few n00besque questions?

1. I see that DC's well-written argument refers to Cirt with plural pronouns. What's up with that?

2. Is DC the same person as Jayen? As i recall, Jayen has an account here, but I've forgotten the name. Could someone sort all this out for me?

Posted by: HRIP7

Smeelgova/Smee, Cirt's old account, was uniformly referred to as "she" in Wikipedia, and to my knowledge never corrected anyone referring to her as such. Cirt, the new account, usually goes by "he". Nobody knows which it is, and it doesn't really matter, though I personally tend to assume it's a "she". "They" is probably safest.

Delicious Carbuncle is Carbuncle here. Andreas/Jayen466 is HRIP7 (me).

Posted by: carbuncle

That seems to be the conclusion that people have drawn. Out of concerns for my personal safety, I cannot comment on whether or not that conclusion is correct.

Posted by: tarantino

Cirt: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Cirt
Smee: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Smee

Cirt is the penultimate wikimedia game player using "the project" to further his agenda. And Cirt is a he, though if I were to link to evidence supporting this, he would whine to Somey and it would be deleted.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Wasn't there some speculation that the Cirt account was operated by a team?

Posted by: HRIP7

Ah well, s/he used to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckerr#Disillusioned.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I see that it was corresponding with Ckerr (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I faintly recall Ckerr -- wasn't he the token African-American Wikipediot back in Wikipedia's Wonder Years?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

you might be thinking of Bcorr (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Bingo.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Gosh, and I thought those guys were incapable of physical comedy! I must stand corrected.

Who is this Jmh649 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

He http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Statement_by_Jmh649 me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images#Statement_by_Jmh649 an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44#Statement_by_Jmh649 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive48#Jmh649, and prone to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Statement_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29 in TM articles.
Gee, sorta like Cirt.

Hmm. He tends to follow Cirt, Future Perfect, and Will Beback around to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee, ain't that strange?
Isn't it funny how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649 was never closed out or resolved?
And isn't it funny that those same 3 bastards voted for Doc James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jmh649?

Posted by: carbuncle

You may know him as "the guy that put the Rohrschach test inkblots on Wikipedia". His dislike for WR may spring from things said about him here in discussions around that incident, but I'm just speculating.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I'm a bit surprised that no-one has called "bullshit" on Jehochman's very blatant attempts to run interference for Cirt in this matter. Along with the above charade, he also tried telling editors discussing the matter in a light not favorable to Cirt at AN/I to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=402356596&oldid=402356060 This is of course, while he tried desperately to control the AE discussion ...

1) When people start discussing remedies that would also apply to Cirt, possibly topic banning him from Scientology BLPs, Jehochman jumps the gun and posts first in the "Results" section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402357080&oldid=402354837 instead.

2) After being bitched out by Scott Mac in the "Results" discussion, but without much real discussion by others yet, he tries to propose a more refined set of solutions, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402369407&oldid=402369225.

3) After a couple of more admins support Scott Mac's proposal to sanction Cirt, and a couple of Cirt's buddies object to such remedies, he motions to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402400448&oldid=402399527, again without any skin off Cirt's back.

4) In his zeal to shut down negative comments about Cirt, Jehochman confuses Jayen466 and uninvolved admin Jayron32, thus striking Jayron's comments, claiming that Jayron is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402411797&oldid=402411654 Of course the irony is that Jayron32 was one of the admins solicited by Cirt earlier in the process. After Jayron says http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=402419248&oldid=402277579, he of course http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402437987&oldid=402437535 for his blunder.

5) For a variety of bogus reasons he expresses http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402411619&oldid=402411246 with people suggesting that Cirt should be sanctioned and even threatens to have everyone's behavior scrutinized by ARBCOM.

6) When it becomes clear that carbuncle's initial sanction was procedurally out of order, Jehochman tries again to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402502685&oldid=402501278 in a way that gets Cirt off the hook.

There are clearly other examples of his meddling in this matter, and it is nothing new. Other than Cirt's more obvious POV bedfellows like Will Beback, and the like, Jehochman is a top notch Cirt enabler. In fact I'm sure he shares Cirt's POV, but simply keeps out of any of those content areas as much he can. I'm of the belief that many admins who support Cirt operate in that manner. They protect him because he's a useful tool to them ... someone who will cross the line to support their POV. And let's face it, who likes Scientology? I certainly don't but like carbuncle I think Cirt's behavior goes way above and beyond anything reasonable and is clearly damaging to the encyclopedia.

Posted by: thekohser

Nothing surprising there. Paid editors stick together.

For example, you didn't seem me piling on Benjiboi recently, did you?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

There's an opportunity there for some crass innuendo, but I will abstain from stating the obvious.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Are you implying that Jehochman is a paid editor? Does he even write articles?

Posted by: lilburne

You don't need to edit to get paid, you just need to make sure that writers don't get blocked.

Posted by: Jagärdu

In the last week, amongst http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Jehochman these are Jehochman's 3 lonely edits to article content.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guru.com&diff=prev&oldid=401764931

2)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Vice&diff=prev&oldid=401622263

3)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&diff=prev&oldid=401433070.

It is no wonder that content editors like Giano go ballistic when jokers like this start criticizing them. I have to admit that not even I thought that his content edits, which are pretty pathetic on their own as well, would be below 3% of his total count for the past week. Jeebers.

Posted by: thekohser

Indeed. Also, remember... Hochman has employees doing the actual work.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Is there something else I can read on Hochman's connection to paid editing or is this just something you're throwing around right now?

Posted by: thekohser

Sure, there's a http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/services/content-development.shtml where Hochman admits to paid editing.

I notice you make no similar demands for proof about Cirt's paid editing.

Posted by: Zoloft

I'm a paid editor as well...
.
.
.
.
.
.
...just not on Wikipedia.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Try http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=wikipedia+site%3Awww.hochmanconsultants.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, more specific.

Posted by: Zoloft

Meh, not really. Just a page of google results, the top one seems the most germane, but the documents listed that have Wikipedia in the title don't tie Hochman to paid editing.

Damning evidence?


From http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/413-SEO-Can-Wikipedia-Help-Your-Business-

Not so much.

<cubagoodingjr> Show me the money! </cubagoodingjr>

Posted by: thekohser

Somebody contact Hochman privately, offer him $500 for a Wikipedia article about someone like Kayslee Collins, and then preserve his exact rejection of the offer, and then I'll retract my claim.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I've been part of discussions concerning the possibility of Cirt being a paid editor (in fact I've made that suggestion myself possibly in this very thread) ... so no I'm not particularly interested in rehashing that. I'm not sure I believe he gets paid anymore either after it has been shown that pretty much every random looking article he puffs up has ties to ex-Scientologists or the opponents of Scientologists. I was curious about Hochman ... though I see nothing more than idle speculation so far. Where is the money indeed?

Posted by: tarantino

What a shlemiel! Does he really think Cirt celebrates Christmas?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Along with Jayjg. Hanukkah Zombie (golum?) comes down the chimney for latkes and milk. I saw it on Futurama.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I sort of assumed Hochman didn't celebrate Christmas either. I do love that he's calling carbuncle's planned AE request "plain nasty". You're such a jerk carbuncle! Stop picking on Cirt during Christmas.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Scientology coatracks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meade_Emory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Moon_%28author%29

Need I say more?

Posted by: lilburne

Whothey?

Posted by: HRIP7

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meade_Emory&action=historysubmit&diff=390460116&oldid=390458578.

Delicious Carbuncle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=402830916&oldid=402824104 at AE earlier today; the filing was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=402830916 by Fut. Perf. half an hour later, on the grounds that the appealed sanction was still in force. The sanction against DC has since been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=402856019&oldid=402853370.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Good grief, I missed that. That's outrageous.

Posted by: carbuncle

If you are even surprised by this, Doc, then I guess you aren't as clued in to the depth of the problem as I thought you were. This is only scratching the surface.

Part of the problem is that Cirt is an admin and has a reputation as a good content editor, so people assume that their edits are kosher. Take a look at Michael Doven, an article which has been brought up a few times already as an example. News of the World as a source in a BLP? An "unauthorised biography" that wasn't published in the UK because of the inevitable libel cases also used as a source?

Unofficial WP Scientology attack dog or not, it is a mystery to me how Cirt has been allowed to get away with this much blatant abuse of policy for so long.

Posted by: HRIP7

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scientologists&diff=prev&oldid=370910359 a novice user tried to remove Jada Pinkett-Smith from "List of Scientologists". She was listed as a member, even though there are plentiful and easily sourceable denials like http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-sets-the-record-straight. That too was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scientologists&diff=next&oldid=370910359 as vandalism.

The user, Passomouse (T-C-L-K-R-D) , made several edits related to Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith, and I am not saying they are all perfect. They too were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jada_Pinkett_Smith&action=historysubmit&diff=370917264&oldid=370911162, and their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Passomouse was quickly filled with warnings from Cirt. Passomouse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=prev&oldid=371069391 Cirt they had contacted Pinkett-Smith's PR office, who had confirmed she is not a Scientologist. Cirt's response was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=next&oldid=371103054. Pinkett-Smith was not removed until much later, along with other non-Scientologists such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scientologists&action=historysubmit&diff=372993466&oldid=372950893 and Chaka Khan, after an RfC, BLPN threads, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=373229696&oldid=373227929 weighing in and lots of wrangling and halfway-house solutions on the talk page.

The thing with Smith, by the way, is that he has supported some Scientology charities, but self-identifies as Christian. He supports charities by all sorts of religions, and the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468644,00.html. Yet the ones that receive prominent mention in Wikipedia are invariably those that involve Scientology.

Posted by: HRIP7

Incidentally, Cirt used Twinkle, not Rollback, on those reverts.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I'm flabbergasted. Jehochman has now single handedly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=402901026&oldid=402886860 carbuncle's AE request. "Brazen" doesn't even begin to describe this nonsense. Someone ought to permanently ban Jehochman from ever taking admin action or commenting as an "uninvolved admin" in any matter related to Cirt. Of course that would be too practical for anyone on Wikipedia to consider.

Addendum:

Hochman's comments to Scott Mac are pretty hilarious. First he says that Cirt is just one of many "wiki-friends" to downplay any bias, then he speaks for Cirt saying, "Scott. Cirt feels you've been in editorial conflict with him." Where does he say that Hochman, because I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Cirt? Oh I get it he must have poked you on Facebook to give you a heads up that he was texting you about it later. You're clearly not great friends, I mean I speak for the feelings of my casual acquaintances all the time based on what they tell me in private correspondences.

Posted by: carbuncle

Are you suggesting that Cirt and Jehochman had off-wiki communication wherein Jehochman agreed to close out the arbitration request for Cirt? I can't imagine that two respected WP admins would act in such an underhanded fashion, but it would explain why Cirt took what is for them an unusually long break from WP but started editing again immediately after Jehochman's attempted closure.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Cirt and Jhochman have clearly been in communication off-wiki this entire time. For instance Cirt's appeals to collaborate with you are 100% Hochman's advice, and I don't just mean what he wrote on-wiki. I have no way to prove this of course. He's obviously trying desperately to help Cirt make this go away in several ways, but in my mind he's failing rather miserably, and indeed exposing himself to a whole lot of smelly shit. The fact that Hochman spoke for Cirt's feelings about Scott Mac is but an indication of their off-wiki communicating. Of course, maybe I'm wrong. If someone can find the diff where Cirt made the assertion on-wiki I'll stand corrected, but I highly doubt it exists.

Posted by: Milton Roe

It's just the usual WP Jews-helping-Jews. What are you, antisemitic? I'll bet you're antisemitic. Otherwise you wouldn't mind that Jews help Jews on WP, to the detriment of anybody-else. You'd just welcome it as a part of Wikidiversity. It's all the cycle of life...

Admit it. You admire Hitler, don't you? Otherwise you'd just leave this whole mess alone.

As for myself, everytime I mention the very obviousness of Jews-helping-Jews on WP, I myself am suspected of admiring Hitler. That's part of the game, don't you know. Say anything about any of this, and you're part of a hate group.

Milton the Hater. That's me.

Posted by: HRIP7

Actually, Cirt not only reverted Ajpropst (T-C-L-K-R-D) , but also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=390466184 them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajpropst&action=historysubmit&diff=390471135&oldid=390460129 as a BLP vandal.

Posted by: carbuncle

It appears that Meade Emory http://the-scientologist.com/Meadeemory.shtml (I'm not really sure what they are trying to say and I have no desire to read a bunch of stuff about Scientology infighting).

There are a whole bunch of BLPs that exist solely to label people as Scientologists. Let me mention Jeff Pomerantz as an example and see what happens. I'm sure a lot of people from WP are reading this thread since DocJames keeps linking to it.

DocJames, why don't you take a look at Pomerantz's BLP and ask yourself why it is even on WP? Why is he in the category "American Scientologists" even though that is a violation of WP:BLPCAT? Look at the discussion on talk page - this was identified as a coatrack article in June, but any changes stymied by User:Coffeepusher, an editor who has an anti-Scientology remark on their userpage. Go ahead, AfD it and see what happens.

Posted by: lilburne

Those articles can only ever be negative or positive, there is simply not enough information, nor are they important enough in their own right to have any full blown article. As sucuh they can only ever exist as some non-speaking extra in relation to something else.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

No, I don't think so. I think it's more interesting than that. In fact, I think it has been an unusually interesting week. What we have seen is a general brawl erupting among admins over the cherished principle that the BLP policy only protects good people, not bad people, and that admins in good standing have a double-0 license to defame the bad people. This is being fought out in the Cirt case and at the AE board, with Will Beback and Jehochman (among others) squaring off against Scott Mac and Lar. I think the outcome of this battle will have lasting and profound consequences for WP.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Since I'm lazy at research, I'm happy to have people point me to any problematic BLPs I should review.

Posted by: HRIP7

Just for reference, these are the articles on Scientology, Scientologists (in particular Tom Cruise), Scientology opponents, and Scientology spoofs in Cirt's top 100.

If they're about Scientology opponents or Scientology spoofs, they'll generally be puffy; if they're related to Scientologists, they'll generally say their films are crappy.

858 - Project Chanology
518 - List of Scientologists
437 - Battlefield Earth (film)
402 - A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology P...
300 - The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
299 - Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
288 - Xenu
272 - The Joy of Sect
250 - Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography
248 - Operation Clambake
245 - Knight and Day
241 - Jason Beghe
180 - David Miscavige
170 - Cult Awareness Network
158 - Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia
148 - Hell Is Other Robots
134 - Lions for Lambs
133 - Bowfinger
127 - Kaja Bordevich Ballo
127 - Paul Haggis
127 - The Profit
126 - Miles Fisher
120 - Scientology in popular culture
109 - Mark Bunker
105 - Hawthorne (TV series)
103 - Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology
102 - Tommy Davis (Scientology)
101 - The Way to Happiness
100 - Typewriter in the Sky
100 - Leo Ryan
97 - Old Dogs (film)
96 - Jessica Feshbach
95 - Religulous
89 - Jesus in Scientology
87 - Aaron Saxton
87 - New Village Leadership Academy
85 - The Bridge (2006 drama)
84 - Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (for Scientology connection see its AfD)
82 - Jose Peralta (for Scientology connection see http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=16944)
79 - ScienTOMogy
79 - Tom Cruise Purple
78 - Scientology
75 - John Carmichael (Scientology)
73 - Another Gospel
72 - Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network
71 - Sharron Angle
71 - Brother from the Same Planet
65 - Mace-Kingsley Ranch School
65 - Stephen A. Kent

231 - Outrageous Betrayal
209 - Est and The Forum in popular culture
204 - Semi-Tough
176 - Getting It: The Psychology of est
87 - Werner Erhard (book)
73 - Werner Erhard

Generally, anyone will be hard pressed to find an article on anything to do with Scientology in Wikipedia that Cirt has not edited and on their watchlist.

A good starting point for BLP review is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Scientologists.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Yeah I don't think this has anything to do with Judaism ... indeed I'm a bit perplexed by the suggestion. As far as I can remember Wikipedia has always functioned in the fashion Herschelkrustofsky describes. Most admins and editors have either been turning a blind eye to or have been actively supporting the policy violations at entries of "bad people". Minor eruptions break out when people finally start objecting but usually these dissipate without much meaningful difference. I'm hoping this time, in this context, something more lasting will come out of all this, but it is very difficult to figure out if there is enough momentum here.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I hope it's like that Tarantino film where each side lavishes extensive firepower on the other, and everyone gets killed.

Posted by: HRIP7

The first one in that category is Bob Adams (American football) (T-H-L-K-D). Readable prose size: 1682 words; mentions of Scientology on the page: 94.

Posted by: HRIP7

Bali ultimate has nominated List of Scientologists (T-H-L-K-D) for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Scientologists#List_of_Scientologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&oldid=401914727#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates violations galore.

Posted by: thekohser

Is that a death threat, Peter? I think you just threatened to kill Jimbo, or at the very least, that you look forward to his being shot!

You are a horrible, horrible person! ! ! ! ! !

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Don't tell me Tarantino is a Scientologist too!

And why do you want me dead?

Posted by: HRIP7

Here is another interesting little article: Prolexic Technologies (T-H-L-K-D).

According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11957367, their clients include Visa and Mastercard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prolexic_Technologies&oldid=372670149 is what the Wikipedia article looks like right now.

Posted by: HRIP7

(That was supposed to be an edit to the previous post; I am not sure whether they actually work for Visa and Mastercard, or whether they were just being quoted as experts.)

Posted by: lilburne

For fuck's sake they've got the 21yo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaches_Geldof on that list. What the hell has she ever done to warrant a wiki page?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Yes, you can read it that way. But at the root, it turns out that a lot of the BAD people are BAD due to being supposed antisemites (Mel Gibson) or people working against Israeli causes, and so on.

In opposition, we have a cabal of editors who got to where they are, by either editing on Jewish bios, or on the pro-Israel side of that conflict, ala Jpgordon, Jayjg, Jehochman, Orangemarlin, MONGO, Slrubenstein, Ryulong, El C--- a long list of pricks or POV warriors on politics--- and their fellow-travelers who may or may not be Jewish-- SlimVirgin, Cirt, and Berlet-in-the-old-days before he blew a gasket (Berlet is certainly not Jewish, but spends his life calling Republicans Nazis and generally pretending to be one).

These people get a Free Pass to do whatever they want to do on other WP articles. If Cirt has a thing againt Scientologists, she's given the Free Pass on THAT, because of her previously politically correct work on Jewish issues. And possibly because there's a modest amount of evidence that Scientolgists and Jews don't get along that well. If you read the WP scientology article, you'll find that the Jews criticize Scientologists for playing the Nazi card. How dare they draw parallels? The Jews themselves never compare later minor stuff to the holocaust.



Say, I wonder who added the above paragraph? Sure seems a Jewish-centered world (encyclopedia) if it devotes a whole paragraph in an article about another religion, to a matter like THAT.

It is very much the same situation as Mantanmoreland being given the free pass to do dastardly economic work (or at least unchecked POV work), due to his work on the Martin Luther King work with Slim, regarding the antisemitism of Martin Luther. That allowed him to get away with a lot, for a very long time. Yes, Mantan happened to be Jewish, but it would have been the same if hadn't been, like Berlet. The key is not that you're genetically-Jewish on WP, but that you edit as one. If you can meatpuppet on the politically correct Jewish view, then you're in like Sammy Davis, Jr., Woopi Goldberg, and Madonna are "in" in Hollywood.

Consider Lyndon LaRouche. Consider SlimVirgin's work on the Death of Jeremiah Duggan. After all this time, HK, don't you really know why LaRouche has been dragged over the coals at WP, and you yourself banned for defending him? Don't you really get it? It's got nothing to do with the fact that LaRouche is a wacko. It's got everything to do with the fact that the Wikipedia power clique doesn't like him. And THAT is only marginally related to his ideas on the economy.

Posted by: HRIP7

Jose Peralta (T-H-L-K-D) is in some ways like the Kenneth Dickson puff-piece.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=16944 is the Scientology connection.

The article, completely revised and expanded by Cirt in time for the election, is a glowing tribute, complete with pull quote. For all I know Peralta may be a wonderful man, but here are some of the sources the article does not use:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/03/smith_is_jose_peralta_really_all_that_better_than_hiram_monserrate.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/12/09/2009-12-09_queens_pol_.html

Posted by: HRIP7

I don't wish to detract from your argument, but that was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=next&oldid=267966036.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

I have a feeling that Will Beback is not considering most of those articles to be Scientology-related when he posts his calculations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=403009632.

Posted by: Jagärdu

Maybe, or maybe by counting the sheer volume of robotic edits Cirt makes to articles in between his POV pushing makes it seem like he's not editing Scientology related articles all that much. But let's be clear, any real editing he does to an entry is in the Scientology arena and nothing else. When someone thinks he's departed from it, in the end, it is discovered that there is in fact a Scientology connection after all. He's an SPA through and through, just one that also does monkey work on the side to make it look like he isn't.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I must respectfully disagree. Every Jewish conspiracy theory, including yours, turns out in the end to be a smokescreen to divert the investigator from the real conspiracy. They are all made plausible by demonstrating that there are a few bad apples who are actually Jewish (except on Wikipedia, who knows? Maybe Jayjg is a plump, middle-aged, fantasy-ridden Presbyterian woman who is hoping to cozy up to some rough and exotic young Jewish POV-pushers.) But look at the history of conspiracizing. Go back to the middle ages, where the oligarchy mastered the art of protecting its privilege through all kinds of cloak-and-dagger stuff involving masons, religious orders, you name it. It was a common tactic to hire some Jewish front men, let them do the dirty work and then let them take the rap (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_Jew.)

For a super-insightful look at real-world conspiracies, read http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/0/3/6/10363/10363.htm by James Fenimore Cooper.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Allow me to let you in on a bit of LaRouche lore. Back in the 1970s, some LaRouche investigators went undercover and paid a visit to Canon West of Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York (T-H-L-K-D). Thanks to WP's incestuous relationship to Google, I just learned that there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Tallis, who turns out to be an Episcopal Canon slash spook. The real Canon West was also a big wheel in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (T-H-L-K-D) (yes, the same one mentioned in The Maltese Falcon (1941 film) (T-H-L-K-D).

It should be noted that the real power elite of the US are Episcopalians, not Jews, and the creme de la creme attend the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine. At any rate, the intrepid investigators met with Canon West, posing as anti-LaRouche journalists. Canon West's tongue began to wag, and he carried on at some length about the threat posed by LaRouche. However, when asked how he intended to counter the threat, he said his various organizations had no intention of doing so. Instead, they planned to "send the Jews after them." By this, he apparently meant the ADL, which is a topic that deserves a thread of its own -- suffice it so say that for the ADL, fighting bigotry is merely a combination cover story and fundraising gimmick. Some accuse them of a long-running extortion campaign against Jews, by scaring the pants off them with tales of anti-Semites under the bed, and then collecting protection money.

Posted by: HRIP7

Will only looked at the top 10, not the top 100; and among the top 10, he missed either Trapped in the Closet (South Park) (T-H-L-K-D) or The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power (T-H-L-K-D)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

And more wholesome fun is to be had on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=403125736#Discretionary_topic_ban_contemplated.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Didn't HRIP7 post some strong (albeit indirect) evidence here that Hochman was likely serving as some kind of advisor to Cirt? Wouldn't that kind of relationship make Hochman "involved"? If so, then Cirt's arguments sound a lot like (say) me saying to a court "Your honor, with respect, but I'll only accept a ruling that comes from the lawyer I am paying for."

Edit: My apologies, HRIP7, it was Jagärdu: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30246&view=findpost&p=262395

Posted by: Beer me

Indeed I count four Scientology coatracks at AFD,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Meyer_(2nd_nomination)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Scientologists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deaths_related_to_Scientology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meade_Emory

Looks like clean up will be for coat racks will be a priority

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The developments of the past week have the makings of a war against institutionalized POV-pushing at Wikipedia. Cirt, Will Beback, and other chronic POV-pushers are in hot water. This could even affect the LaRouche articles.

Posted by: tarantino

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/31/rorschach-test.html


http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/72745/Dr-James-Heilman-Moose-Jaw-SK.html.

Posted by: Milton Roe

This is not a new technique, of course. Jessie Jackson has gotten very wealthy using essentially the same tactic. He goes to a Giant Corporation that cannot afford to be called racist, and essentially extorts some money from them so he doesn't attack them (or even better, applies his seal of approval). Some of that money goes to minority-targetted charities, so it all looks legit. But some of it also goes to Jackson's groups, and from them to Jackson (rather indirectly). So it's a damn good living. Jessie Jackson doesn't make money by punching a time clock or coding aps or designing buildings or seeing patients. He just threatens corporations.

Recently I've been having fun with articles by hitting the HISTORY tab of wiki articles, and then "Revision History statistics". That gives you a good idea of who wrote the article and who continue to WP:OWN watch it (especially if they've edited both long ago and recently). Here's the data for the top ten editors to New antisemitism (times of day deleted). The first figure is total number of edits:

1032 (624/408) SlimVirgin 2005-04-03 - 2009-09-04
341 (273/68) CJCurrie 2005-02-18 - 2010-10-24
238 (133/105) Jayjg 2004-09-23 - 2008-12-28
79 (23/56) Viriditas 2005-04-23 - 2009-01-12
77 (73/4) Avraham 2007-01-18 - 2008-01-15
74 (62/12) Jmabel 2005-02-15 - 2006-12-25
67 (58/9) Formeruser-82 2006-04-14 - 2006-06-27
59 (45/14) Armon 2007-01-30 - 2009-01-08
58 (50/8) Humus sapiens 2004-06-22 - 2007-12-21
56 (32/24) Malik Shabazz 2007-06-05 - 2010-10-19

As you see, SlimVirgin has made more edits than everybody else put together. Basically it's her article, with major contributions by CJCurrie and Jayjg. Everybody else is WAY down. Interesting, eh? BTW, who the hell is user:CJCurrie? Have we discussed him, her, it? Formeruser-82 also sounds familar... a sock of who? Ah, homeontherange, the Canadian Commie: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20680&pid=147790&st=80&#entry147790

Here's Lyndon LaRouche. I'm going to be lazy and leave the times in:

605 (536/69) Will Beback 2006-01-17 01:54 2010-12-18 00:18
416 (248/168) SlimVirgin 2004-11-24 03:40 2010-08-11 00:12
274 (178/96) Formeruser-81 2004-04-12 17:49 2004-11-21 04:26
272 (263/9) Dking 2006-12-12 01:37 2009-10-25 04:02
192 (164/28) Cberlet 2004-12-16 22:34 2007-11-22 04:03
191 (182/9) Leatherstocking 2008-10-31 00:48 2009-10-27 01:06
185 (164/21) Herschelkrustofsky 2004-05-30 16:31 2005-01-25 15:41
164 (152/12) Tsunami Butler 2006-11-23 12:29 2007-04-10 14:36
114 (104/10) Weed Harper 2004-08-11 14:48 2005-01-24 16:40
83 (77/6) RidinHood25 2007-09-21 00:32 2007-09-21 02:50

This article was written by Will Beback and SlimVirgin. The next three are Formeruser-81 (presumably a former sock of Formeruser-82, doh), Dking, and Cberlet. There, HK, you're down there at #7 but you haven't edited since 2005. Lazy, lazy. Will Beback has been beavering away on LaRouche as late as 4 days ago. Man, this guy hates LaRouche.

Here's Martin Luther:

884 (821/63) CTSWyneken 2003-06-20 19:46 2008-08-23 21:58
699 (559/140) Drboisclair 2005-08-26 18:19 2010-08-16 16:07
433 (344/89) Ptmccain 2006-04-16 19:56 2006-07-27 18:25
424 (223/201) SlimVirgin 2006-01-03 01:08 2009-05-13 09:06
287 (239/48) Qp10qp 2006-08-24 14:00 2009-06-30 12:38
85 (69/16) Mantanmoreland 2006-07-04 16:25 2007-09-19 20:06
83 (79/4) Doright 2005-12-15 11:06 2007-05-17 20:35
78 (43/35) Jayjg 2005-11-03 15:50 2008-01-28 01:59
77 (0/77) Leandrod 2006-10-31 10:14 2007-01-29 03:12
76 (48/28) Justas Jonas 2007-01-06 02:35 2007-01-21 00:10


There's Slim, Jayjg, and Mantanmoreland in the top 10 contributors of this article. WTF? Who knew they were all Lutherans?

Here are the top 5 for Jimmy Wales:

385 (343/42) QuackGuru 2007-03-13 16:48 2010-12-06 22:28
366 (237/129) Skomorokh 2007-11-04 18:17 2010-10-28 09:56
135 (61/74) Jhurlburt 2007-04-01 00:21 2010-04-08 11:47
108 (106/2) SqueakBox 2005-12-16 21:55 2009-08-25 14:44
102 (4/98) Curps 2004-12-28 00:29 2006-05-17 02:39


This may explain a lot about how QuackGuru has survived this long, as he has been subject to half a dozen long blocks and many an arbcomm arbitration for his stultified robotified chiropractic EQ-zero ways. But his nose is you-know-where.

TALK:Jimmy Wales is fun, as it has more or less the same structure:

484 (417/67) QuackGuru 2007-04-21 01:33 2010-12-08 07:00
150 (139/11) Skomorokh 2008-11-02 16:17 2010-11-18 02:08
119 (115/4) Jimbo Wales 2004-03-16 14:22 2010-12-05 16:21
118 (117/1) SqueakBox 2005-02-27 02:53 2009-12-08 03:22
115 (0/115) SineBot (bot) 2007-08-19 09:00 2010-12-19 07:53
109 (99/10) Jennavecia 2008-10-29 20:32 2009-06-18 22:04
99 (96/3) Seth Finkelstein 2008-03-08 03:41 2010-12-05 23:52
96 (87/9) Off2riorob 2009-07-03 16:26 2010-12-17 23:01
86 (83/3) KimvdLinde 2006-05-27 13:09 2010-04-29 20:07
83 (54/29) Rodhullandemu 2008-10-29 16:51 2010-12-23 02:11

Two editors (Quack and Skomorokh) have posted more on Jimbo's TALK than Jimbo has.

Feel free to play with this feature, which hasn't been mentioned on WR enough. It might need its own thread, as the info to be gained and analyzed is large, useful, and hasn't even been touched on.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The Formeruser Series is a group of usernames, all belonging to the same guy, that have been presumably changed to protect the innocent. They are not to be confused with User2004 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who is Will Beback -- if you take User2004's edits into account, WB has a larger share of edits on [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. Mr. Formeruser was bitterly anti-LaRouche, but relatively honest with respect to WikiTactics and not prone to the sort of super-devious abuse of process which characterized Slim 'n' Will's rise to power. There was a stable version of [[Lyndon LaRouche]] that was written as a compromise between Mr. Formeruser (who has an account here, by the way, under a name which must remain secret according to a deal made with other staff members,) Weed Harper, and myself, brokered, amazingly, by Snowspinner. However, not long thereafter, Slim 'n' Will came to town, with Cberlet in tow, and took over the article. They arranged for me to be topic banned, courtesy of the ArbCom, and not long thereafter I was community banned by the community of Will and JoshuaZ. Shortly thereafter Dking joined the party. The result was the article you see today.

Posted by: carbuncle

For the benefit those who weren't paying attention, here is the http://www.webcitation.org/5vBxQQd9U to this debacle (intervening comments removed):

I would be remiss if I didn't note that soon after making this statement, Cirt leaves a comment on Talk:Tom Cruise demonstrating their continued concern with following WP's BLP policy rather than just reverting:

Posted by: Cla68

I believe Cirt was given some quiet advice some time ago to leave the BLPs alone. He probably should, after all that has happened lately, give some serious reconsideration to following that advice. Hopefully, Cirt is paying attention to this thread and has the power to exercise some free will.

Posted by: lilburne

Nope

Posted by: Doc glasgow

How anyone can argue thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deaths_related_to_Scientology isn't an obvious neutrality beach is quite beyond me.


I'm wondering about "List of deaths related to Wikipedia"?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Interesting list ... according to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaja_Bordevich_Ballo&oldid=403094173 took a Scientology personality test and subsequently committed suicide.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Strange article -- it says she left a note, but does not specify what the note says. Would the contents of the note have been kept secret by Norwegian police? Mentioning it implies that the Scientology test provoked the suicide, but in an unverifiable way. That ought to be cleared up, or the article deleted. On the whole, though, this article is more credible than SlimVirgin's Jeremiah Duggan article.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_in_Scientology

Any non-contributors are welcome to point me to articles of concern and I'll add them for review.

Posted by: RMHED

You must really enjoy banging your head against a brick wall. Wikipedia is incapable of neutrality, the best you can hope for is an even-handed bias.

Posted by: Zoloft

I come from a long line of people who knock down brick walls with their skulls. I'm in.

Posted by: RMHED

Another recruit joins the Endless Quest.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Welcome.......to Masochistopedia!!!!
The line for Cirt abuse forms to the left. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Cla68

I had the misfortune once of being strong-armed into observing a couple of my friends take a Scientology personality test. After it was over, I felt like doing someone bodily harm, not to myself, however. Anyway, good idea to start the neutrality task force. Again, if the BLPs had been left alone, this probably wouldn't be happening.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Personally, I'd redirect [[Scientology]] to [[Scam]] and be done with it.

However, abusing BLPs to pursue agendas, even righteous agendas, must be unacceptable.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Indeed. But since it's inevitable so long as wikified BLPs exist, then you know to what conclusion this logically leads.

Posted by: lilburne

To my eternal sham until recently I confused Hubbard with Heinlein, my only excuse is they are both SciFi authors beginning with H (and I associate Heinlein with rightwing politics). A colleague tells me that one can tell the difference - Heinlein is at least readable.