Cirt revisited Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And more wholesome fun is to be had on Cirt's talk page.

[taiwopanfob]

And more wholesome fun is to be had on Cirt's talk page.

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=&sh...ndpost&p=262395


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Sun 19th December 2010, 3:05pm

[Beer me]

Bali ultimate has nominated List of Scientologists (T-H-L-K-D) for deletion.

BLPCAT violations galore.

Indeed I count four Scientology coatracks at AFD,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art..._Scientologists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art..._to_Scientology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ion/Meade_Emory

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

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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.

[tarantino]

Who is this Jmh649 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?
He strikes me as an intolerant ranter, and prone to involvement in TM articles.

A few of his emergency room patients don't appreciate him.

Date 11/30/10 Arrogant and rude. We can only be thankful that he is gone. The worst doctor-patient relationship display ever.

[Milton Roe]

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.

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 fictional character in novels based on Canon West, 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.

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?showt...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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

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.

[carbuncle]

For the benefit those who weren't paying attention, here is the coda to this debacle (intervening comments removed):

Note about Scientology related editing

I am the single largest contributor of quality-rated content to Wikipedia on the subject of Scientology, including the highest amount of GA quality material and the highest amount of FA quality material. I am also the highest contributor of quality-rated material which reflects positively on the organization, including multiple GA rated articles about works by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

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

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

Update: I have removed an additional 55 pages from my watchlist relating to the topic of Scientology. These were any remaining pages not related to prior quality improvement and WP:GA/WP:FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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:

Rathbun ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical.

This is an important point, and it reflects negatively on the WP:BLP person, Mark Rathbun, to have removed this crucial piece of info. This should be added back. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

[Cla68]

For the benefit those who weren't paying attention, here is the coda to this debacle (intervening comments removed):

Note about Scientology related editing

I am the single largest contributor of quality-rated content to Wikipedia on the subject of Scientology, including the highest amount of GA quality material and the highest amount of FA quality material. I am also the highest contributor of quality-rated material which reflects positively on the organization, including multiple GA rated articles about works by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

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

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

Update: I have removed an additional 55 pages from my watchlist relating to the topic of Scientology. These were any remaining pages not related to prior quality improvement and WP:GA/WP:FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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:

Rathbun ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical.

This is an important point, and it reflects negatively on the WP:BLP person, Mark Rathbun, to have removed this crucial piece of info. This should be added back. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 23rd December 2010, 2:08pm

[lilburne]

Hopefully, Cirt is paying attention to this thread and has the power to exercise some free will.

Nope

[Doc glasgow]

How anyone can argue that 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"?

[TungstenCarbide]

How anyone can argue that 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"?

Interesting list ... according to Wikipedia, Kaja Ballo took a Scientology personality test and subsequently committed suicide.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

... according to Wikipedia, Kaja Ballo took a Scientology personality test and subsequently committed suicide.

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.

[Doc glasgow]

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

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

[RMHED]

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

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

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.

[Zoloft]

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

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

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.

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

[RMHED]

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

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

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.

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

Another recruit joins the Endless Quest.

[EricBarbour]

OK, I've started a task group to clean up the Scientology stuff. Any Wikipedia contributors that want to help, see Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology
Any non-contributors are welcome to point me to articles of concern and I'll add them for review.

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.

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

Another recruit joins the Endless Quest.

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

[Cla68]

... according to Wikipedia, Kaja Ballo took a Scientology personality test and subsequently committed suicide.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 24th December 2010, 2:26am

[Doc glasgow]

... according to Wikipedia, Kaja Ballo took a Scientology personality test and subsequently committed suicide.

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.

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.

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

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