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

[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: Sat 27th March 2010, 7:42am

[pietkuip]

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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

Nah, it was Sai Baba he was into.

But, as they say, there is always the risk that fighting monsters turns you into one.

Piet versus Cirt, or Cirt versus Piet (I dont know which it is) here.

I would not put it past Scientologists, or other cultists, to accuse cult awareness activist of being cultists or even Scientologists. Yes, folks, it gets that confusing.

The business of Scientology seems to have rightly earned status of modern folk devils.

There are alternatives even for Scientologists, like being nice to your neighbors and privately practising Freezone Scientology ...

Would not it be the American thing to do to formally separate the Wikipedia from Religion?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 28th March 2010, 3:42am

[HRIP7]

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

Look, I think it is fairly clear what happened her. Smeelgova (later Smee), someone blessed with considerable personal and technical resources (and likely some relevant professional experience, as others here have pointed out before) had come to Wikipedia with a strong anti-cult agenda focused on Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D) and Landmark Education (T-H-L-K-D), and a side interest in the related topic of Scientology. By June 2007, her zealous editing had netted her a hefty block log. She had also apparently been subjected to some sort of real-life harassment by the Erhard crowd and/or Scientology.

Then along came Durova's COFS Scientology arbcom case, based on the checkuser result revealing that people from the Church of Scientology were editing Wikipedia as a group. Smee was listed as a party to this case and posted a statement, but did not participate in the evidence and workshop sections, instead dropping out of sight a day later for a period of three months.

It's no secret that the early Wikipedia luminaries included a number of committed anti-Scientologists (like David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a former arbitrator, shown here with Jimbo) who had been active on alt.religion.scientology for many years and saw the potential Wikipedia had in exposing Scientology. Perhaps, around the time of the COFS case, someone clueful impressed upon people in the Foundation that it might be very useful to have someone motivated and resourceful like Smee on the team who would keep an eye on things like Scientology, as long as they would follow policy, and impressed upon Smee that it might be best to disappear for a while.

On 22 September 2007 Smeelgova returns to Wikipedia (with a sex change) as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage (actually a Werner Erhard pseudonym, later renamed Cirt), with an edit to Scientology and Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D), a professionally cleaned up site and Internet history, and Durova as a mentor.

Now, 30 months and over 100,000 edits later, Cirt is an admin on Wikipedia (thanks to Durova's good offices), an administrator on Commons, an arbitrator, checkuser, and administrator on Wikinews, an administrator on Wikisource, an administrator on the English Wikiquote, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. As well as the leading contributor of featured portals to Wikipedia. And throughout this time, Durova has faithfully popped up to support Cirt and smooth troubled waters on various projects. She also closely collaborated with Cirt on the 2009 Scientology arbcom case. And, it must be acknowledged, she has given him private talkings-to to curb his excesses and gotten him to edit more responsibly. Cirt is a highly respected editor today, a stunning success for someone who started out as a POV warrior with a block log.

The only downside of this success is that people like PelleSmith (T-C-L-K-R-D) , an academic who left Wikipedia in disgust over Cirt's bullying, or Pieter Kuiper (T-C-L-K-R-D) here, have no means of redress on the occasions when Cirt's old zeal and persecutory instinct rears its head. It's the same old problem, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Cirt does a lot of sterling work, but it would be good if Wikipedia policy space stopped curving around him whenever his agenda raises a justified eyebrow (as in the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article currently at AfD), and if there were an end to the personal insinuations and vendettas levelled against anyone who dares challenge him.

[HRIP7]

Nah, it was Sai Baba he was into.

You got Cirt mixed up with Andries (T-C-L-K-R-D) or someone, methinks.

If Cirt had beef with with Sathya Sai Baba (T-H-L-K-D), that article wouldn't be the perennial mess that it is.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

You got Cirt mixed up with Andries (T-C-L-K-R-D) or someone, methinks.

You are correct, it was Andries ... thank you ... I was just trying to remember the other's name.

From memory, Andries did not have so much support from the Elite. I found your exposé very interesting. The Pee-dia has a lean towards the the geekier, sci-fi scientology religion (pro and con) rather than the whacky Hindu ones.

[HRIP7]

Here Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Compare the swiftness of response at WP:AE in Pieter Kuiper's case to the "moderated discussion" I was saddled with when I brought a Scientology case to WP:AE a few weeks ago.

[[WP:RANDY]], anyone? But my opponent had the benefit of not antagonising an anti-Scientologist. He just thought Time Magazine and the BBC were anti-German racists, deleted sourced content, edit-warred (partly against Cirt, funnily enough) and introduced unsourced material (making the text say the opposite of what the cited source said). That's an okay view to have, you're still welcome at Wikipedia, and given every chance to make sure your content concerns are addressed. Pity Pieter will not have the same opportunity.

And my comment about the moderated discussion is no disrespect to SilkTork, the moderator, who's a cool guy, and meant well.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Sun 28th March 2010, 4:33pm

[pietkuip]

Here Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Thanks a lot for your support there. One really needs an eloquent lawyer in such a forum. As you already noticed, a topic ban on Scientology would not affect my editing on enwp. But I would appeal anyway, to expose Cirt's methods for silencing opposition.

I looked at some of the YouTube material that he uploaded to commons. In my view, it reflects very badly on the anti-cult people. They often do not really seem to respect basic liberties, like freedom of religion.

This post has been edited by pietkuip: Sun 28th March 2010, 9:02pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I looked at some of the YouTube material that he uploaded to commons. In my view, it reflects very badly on the anti-cult people. They often do not really seem to respect basic liberties, like freedom of religion.

One of my beefs is with the "binary thinking" tendency. That is to say, the reduction of any difference or debate to two side, e.g. cultie and anti-cultie.

In reality, there are always many more side, e.g. cultie, anti-cultie, cult awareness, cult apologist, family protectionist, cult-look-I-really-dont-care-but-try-and-be-cool-and-not-fuck-up-or-bug-the-rest-of-us-ists, cult-you've-got-to-fucking-joking-ists or cult cult-they-are-in-for-the-money-power-sex-whatever-ists ... and people would be good to see this. There is a whole rainbow of hues about the debate.

And then, of course, like some 18th C battle, you have the official observers sitting on hill watching and the media whipping up the storm.

I am not sure you can label anyone "anti-cult" and they are not even one. The other part of the binary myth. Everyone is on side or the other and they are all One. Not true. Most of the supposedly "anti-cult" people just belong to other equally cultic religions, the primary one being Evangelistic Christianity, and all it is a turf war between to gangs.

But, kind of like viking raiders on a mental level, cults do feed off families (stealing members) and their host societies. One does need to be tooled up and pretty battle hardened to cope with their onslaught because the culties are generally super-naturally motivated. It is "the cause", "victory is assured", and their god is with them against the evildoers.

[HRIP7]

Here Pieter Kuiper is in for round 2 at WP:AE: I'm sure he'll be gone from the topic area by tonight. And no surprise, Durova is there in support again.

Thanks a lot for your support there. One really needs an eloquent lawyer in such a forum. As you already noticed, a topic ban on Scientology would not affect my editing on enwp. But I would appeal anyway, to expose Cirt's methods for silencing opposition.

You're welcome. If you're unhappy with either the warning you received or the outcome of the second thread, you should take your complaint to the arbitration committee (a few of whom are actually reading and contributing to Wikipedia Review).

I've suggested closing the thread without result and recommend you agree to voluntarily step away from the dispute for 48 hours. I honestly believe it is the best thing you can do under the circumstances.

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

This is a technique, not just limited to cultic religions such as Scientology and the Brahma Kumaris, but elsewhere too, e.g. the climate change debate.

I think it arises both knowing or deliberately, and as unconscious behavior learned at a young age.

If dominance of the argument or topic page is not possible, the first level is just seeding doubt in some way. Such proponents know that to seed doubt in the audiences mind, however spurious, illogical and unethical, is half way to winning. Doubt can be equally seeding by clever manipulation, blunt lies, ad hominem attacks etc.

We had it on the Brahma Kumari topic with the cult adherent plastering vast tags all over an article he knows is entirely factually accurate ... and then scoring extra points or provoking by constantly reverting its removal.

If that does not work sufficiently, the proponent is aggressive enough and the environment susceptible to abuse, then the next level is to make the environment as highly objectionable as possible, "upping the ante" to the point were most of the audience will then leave or avoid the situation, e.g. the use of hyperbole, or "atrocity pornography" in many WWII related debates. However "clean" or "right" the victim is, they are still tainted by the "smell". The winner being who ever is willing and able to be the dirtiest.

Interestingly, we also had another move which I had not seen before which was the attempt to involve other parties, especially entirely uninformed, the ploy being that someone that did not know was better to be involved than someone that did ... making the article inaccurate. A fudge war.

[Abd]

The whole thing is way out of proportion. Scientology unfortunately has that effect on Wikipedia.

The lack of efficient and fair dispute resolution process has that effect on Wikipedia, whenever editors run into real-world conflicts that take more than a few hundred-words-or-less potshots to understand.

I looked at the WP account for HRIP7, having noticed the cogent comment here. Impressed, I am.

[HRIP7]

Pieter Kuiper is topic-banned for two weeks under the old COFS article probation. (I wish I had realised that was still in effect a couple of weeks ago.)

[pietkuip]

Pieter Kuiper is topic-banned for two weeks under the old COFS article probation. (I wish I had realised that was still in effect a couple of weeks ago.)

Yes, I see that now. Strange decision, three points were considered trivial, sentencing is based on me trying to make explicit in policy that one should not guess birth dates of living people.

But Cirt got exaxtly what he wanted: I am supposed to leave Cirt alone forever. Any future collision he will refer to this prohibition against "hounding". It is disgusting.

I think I will write an appeal on Wednesday, and then take an Easter wikibreak.

[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.)

[Milton Roe]

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

Look, I think it is fairly clear what happened her. Smeelgova (later Smee), someone blessed with considerable personal and technical resources (and likely some relevant professional experience, as others here have pointed out before) had come to Wikipedia with a strong anti-cult agenda focused on Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D) and Landmark Education (T-H-L-K-D), and a side interest in the related topic of Scientology. By June 2007, her zealous editing had netted her a hefty block log. She had also apparently been subjected to some sort of real-life harassment by the Erhard crowd and/or Scientology.

Then along came Durova's COFS Scientology arbcom case, based on the checkuser result revealing that people from the Church of Scientology were editing Wikipedia as a group. Smee was listed as a party to this case and posted a statement, but did not participate in the evidence and workshop sections, instead dropping out of sight a day later for a period of three months.

It's no secret that the early Wikipedia luminaries included a number of committed anti-Scientologists (like David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a former arbitrator, shown here with Jimbo) who had been active on alt.religion.scientology for many years and saw the potential Wikipedia had in exposing Scientology. Perhaps, around the time of the COFS case, someone clueful impressed upon people in the Foundation that it might be very useful to have someone motivated and resourceful like Smee on the team who would keep an eye on things like Scientology, as long as they would follow policy, and impressed upon Smee that it might be best to disappear for a while.

On 22 September 2007 Smeelgova returns to Wikipedia (with a sex change) as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage (actually a Werner Erhard pseudonym, later renamed Cirt), with an edit to Scientology and Werner Erhard (T-H-L-K-D), a professionally cleaned up site and Internet history, and Durova as a mentor.

Now, 30 months and over 100,000 edits later, Cirt is an admin on Wikipedia (thanks to Durova's good offices), an administrator on Commons, an arbitrator, checkuser, and administrator on Wikinews, an administrator on Wikisource, an administrator on the English Wikiquote, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. As well as the leading contributor of featured portals to Wikipedia. And throughout this time, Durova has faithfully popped up to support Cirt and smooth troubled waters on various projects. She also closely collaborated with Cirt on the 2009 Scientology arbcom case. And, it must be acknowledged, she has given him private talkings-to to curb his excesses and gotten him to edit more responsibly. Cirt is a highly respected editor today, a stunning success for someone who started out as a POV warrior with a block log.

Is he banging her?

Sorry, but somebody has to ask the hard but obvious questions.

[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.

[pietkuip]

Appeals to the arbitration committee take four weeks, according to this. The process seems dauntingly complicated anyway, so I won't bother.

Let Cirt celebrate his victory - a potential opponent silenced. (And no, I do not sympathize with Scientology, I just dislike Cirt's attempts to keep total control over the subject on wikipedia. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are for any faith with any wacko tenets.)