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

[Moulton]

Wow, Gerard really is wearing a T-Shirt mocking Scientology.

And here he is posting about that very T-shirt.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 11th April 2010, 8:43pm

[Abd]

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is here.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop. However, what about Cirt? I see certain editors/admins yelling at Pieter that he should stop it, but Cirt kept putting up more and more complaints about Pieter. It was obvious from the beginning that both editors should be told to stop, maybe even be short-blocked if they didn't.

And then, the elephant in the living room. Pay no attention to this elephant. An admin blocks Pieter for the second time, wheel-warring. Clearly involved, shouldn't have touched Pieter with tools. Matter already under discussion. No consensus.

This should be open and shut. The admin's privileges should be suspended until the admin provides the community with satisfactory assurances that it won't happen again.

There is no ArbComm there, so it should be done by a bureaucrat on his or her own neutral judgment, after a discussion. And possibly pending discussion, as a "suspension."

I've not advocated desysopping for making a mistake. I've pointed out, though, that refusal or inability to acknowledge recusal failure maintains an ongoing hazard, and failing to address this creates and maintains an impression of arbitrary, biased, and capricious administration.

Not that I expect it to change. I'm really interested, now, in this stuff because of possible future utility.

[CharlotteWebb]

There is of course another aspect to these compilations of videos by disgruntled ex-Scientologists. It's like having a page on the institution of marriage, filled exclusively with video testimonies from people who have just gone through a bitter divorce. With nothing from honeymooners, and nothing from the people who have been happily married for 50 years. It's simply not a neutral portrayal.

I guess they could balance it with the following video.



This guy seems thrilled to death about both scientology and marriage.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Mon 12th April 2010, 12:23am

[HRIP7]

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is here.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop. However, what about Cirt? I see certain editors/admins yelling at Pieter that he should stop it, but Cirt kept putting up more and more complaints about Pieter. It was obvious from the beginning that both editors should be told to stop, maybe even be short-blocked if they didn't.

4 out of the 6 deletion requests that Cirt complained about at the beginning of the thread, entitled "Behavior by User:Pieter Kuiper", resulted in deletions because Cirt's license tags turned out to be misleading. 5 other files that Pieter nominated have also been deleted by closing admins for the same reason. That seems a pretty good hit rate. So why should Pieter have stopped? Having found those, he would have had good reason to believe he'd find more. And probably would have.

So Pieter identified copyvios uploaded by Cirt. The result is that Cirt's files got deleted, and Pieter got blocked for a month. Go figure.

[HRIP7]

I've just realised that User:ShakataGaNai actually re-blocked Pieter, for a month, at 17:40 on 7 April, 9 minutes after Pieter nominated some of ShakataGaNai's files for deletion.

Two days later, the files concerned were deleted as "obvious" copyvios.

What kind of place is this, where admins get to block editors for a month, with impunity, if they nominate the admin's copyvios?

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Mon 12th April 2010, 3:44pm

[pietkuip]

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is here.

Arrggh.

I read it. What I noticed was that, sure, Pieter didn't know when to stop.

I was well aware that I needed to stop if I needed the "editing privileges" on Commons.

If not before, I was well aware that I ought to adopt the submissive posture when VOLCO Cary Bass made statements like these. And I know very well that I ought to have paid intermediaries like Finnrind at least a token of respect or a token of remorse. The guy at the Office making this kind of statements has a chilling effect on lower-ranking admins; they cannot overturn a block that has been endorsed by the Office without risking their status. That is what I had learned here.

But I wanted to be able to treat Cirt and other admins just like anybody else whose uploads show a pattern of not understanding copyright.

[HRIP7]

If not before, I was well aware that I ought to adopt the submissive posture when VOLCO Cary Bass made statements like these. And I know very well that I ought to have paid intermediaries like Finnrind at least a token of respect or a token of remorse. The guy at the Office making this kind of statements has a chilling effect on lower-ranking admins; they cannot overturn a block that has been endorsed by the Office without risking their status. That is what I had learned here.

But I wanted to be able to treat Cirt and other admins just like anybody else whose uploads show a pattern of not understanding copyright.

You forgot Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in here in Cirt's support, arguing

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it? Perhaps it's payback for the nice article Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

So both the Foundation volunteer coordinator and the Foundation lawyer took the trouble to come to Cirt's aid. For the connection between Godwin and long-time anti-Scientology activist Gerard, see this December 2009 Register article. According to The Register, at least,

David Gerard is still listed on the Wikimedia Foundation website as the encyclopedia's UK press contact, and he has for years been part of the site's inner-circle.

It's plausible that there might be a sort of backroom understanding between such Foundation luminaries and Cirt's Scientology crusade. It would explain Cirt's brazen cockiness in going after inconvenient users. She knows nothing can happen to her.

[pietkuip]

You forgot Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in here in Cirt's support, arguing

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

Perhaps it's payback for the nice article Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

That text is sycophancy exemplified.

[HRIP7]

You forgot Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in here in Cirt's support, arguing

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

Well, you have been unblocked by Kameraad Pjotr. I have declined Durova's request to urge you to make gestures and "disengage from the conflict". I think it is up to the other side to make gestures of reconciliation to you.

[Somey]

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it? Perhaps it's payback for the nice article Cirt wrote about Godwin's book.

It's the usual copyright line for content posted by administrators. Particularly if there's logrolling involved!

As for the article about Godwin's book, I noticed that it contains this sentence:

Godwin's motivation is to make sure that the Internet is kept safe from government actions which have the potential to decrease freedom of speech.

But we know that can't be true, because Godwin works for the Wikimedia Foundation. His primary professional goal must therefore be to ensure that government intervention in internet-related affairs happens ASAP, and is as strict and onerous as possible. Otherwise, he'd be working for a responsible organization.

Still, I wish this incident didn't involve Scientology... I mean, sure, the real test of a fair system is how it attempts to deal fairly with the worst elements of society, but why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

[pietkuip]

why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

Little old ladies wanting to upload pictures from the family album are usually given a very hard time. But they do not complain about harassment at notice boards.

[HRIP7]

Well, you have been unblocked by Kameraad Pjotr.

Foundation employee Cary Bass threatened Pjotr with a desysop for the unblock. He now seems to have thought better of it.

The presence of a Wikipedia arbitrator in the noticeboard discussion, endorsing the unblock, may have helped.

Still, I wish this incident didn't involve Scientology... I mean, sure, the real test of a fair system is how it attempts to deal fairly with the worst elements of society, but why can't these WP'ers occasionally push an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda, or even an anti-little-old-lady agenda? That would make this a lot easier.

The best I can offer for an anti-Tibetan-freedom agenda is the sorely neglected RFCU on User:PCPP.

[HRIP7]

This is not the usual copyright line in Wikimedia projects, is it?

No, it is not the usual line on Commons, but it has always been Godwin's line. Commons users will write to him with copyright questions, and sometimes he answers them, usually that he does not see a real problem. But it is exceptional that he writes someting himself in a DR, see :commons:Special:Contributions/MGodwin (T-H-L-K-D). The copyright fundamentalists on Commons tend to disregard those opinions. Actually, I would like a more relaxed attitude towards copyright on Commons, and I am a sure I will quote Godwin on this. I am glad that Cirt could make him write this.

This line of reasoning, that "there is no problem -- the Foundation can always take it down if someone complains", wouldn't go down well with people like Moonriddengirl (T-C-L-K-R-D) at Wikipedia, who are concerned with the interests of downstream users of free Wikipedia material.

If someone prints a book, say, using an image wrongly marked as public domain in Commons, and the copyright owner subsequently complains, it is easy for WMF to remove the offending file. It is far more difficult and costly for the downstream user to reprint their publication, sans the copyright violation.

[tarantino]

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

[EricBarbour]

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

Linky?.....

[HRIP7]

She knows nothing can happen to her.

Cirt is a Jewish guy in his mid 30s.

Linky?.....

Jewish, very likely. Guy?

The "I am a victim of harassment" strategy is more of a female play. So is complaining about ER plot lines, or the cheery efforts to socialise.

The name "Smeelgova" is as female as "Curt Wilhelm vonSavage" is male. The first was the original account name; the second, the name she used after her 3-month disappearance -- following real-life harassment, according to WikiWhistle.

Let's bear the latter in mind, here -- no outing of addresses and the like, please. She deserves a kick up the butt sometimes, but not to have her life ruined.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Wed 14th April 2010, 9:27am

[chrisoff]

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Wed 14th April 2010, 11:16pm

[Kelly Martin]

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

Cirt is definitely Smeelgova. The question as to whether Cirt is male or female remains unsettled, since (as far as I know) nobody has matched a real-life identity up with Cirt's login ID. However, the predominant opinion appears to be that Cirt is female.

[taiwopanfob]

You forgot Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in here in Cirt's support, arguing

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

Gee! This strikes me as failing the "red flag test" of the OCILA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Red_Flags). If Commons is "cognizant" of a copyright claim, they just can't keep it around and await a DMCA notice -- they have to take action on their own in order to protect their own "safe harbor".

[HRIP7]

Did I miss something? Is Cirt Smeelgova? (I assumed Cirt was a guy.)

Cirt has acknowledged several times that her prior account was Smee[lgova] (most recently here). Actually, Smee (T-C-L-K-R-D) redirects to Cirt (T-C-L-K-R-D) today; she created a redirect for it recently.
She changed her account name from Smeelgova to Smee some time in 2007, then stopped editing, came back as Curt Wilhelm vonSavage three months later, when the 2007 Scientology arbitration had ended, and renamed that account to Cirt some time after that. The rest is history.

You forgot Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer, who weighed in here in Cirt's support, arguing

"But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)."

Gee! This strikes me as failing the "red flag test" of the OCILA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Red_Flags). If Commons is "cognizant" of a copyright claim, they just can't keep it around and await a DMCA notice -- they have to take action on their own in order to protect their own "safe harbor".

I think this is why Pieter said that nobody on Commons usually cares much about what Mike Godwin says.