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

[chrisoff]

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.

Interesting. I haven't notice these attributes in today's Cirt. Seems like a guy. Is Cirt's aggression a female play?

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Thu 15th April 2010, 10:37pm

[HRIP7]

Further to the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day thread, Orderinchaos (T-C-L-K-R-D) has now weighed in in Cirt's support at the T:TDYK thread.

People familiar with this present thread will remember that Orderinchaos did his best to help Cirt get sanctions against Pieter Kuiper, in two en:WP Arbitration Enforcement threads, and in the mammoth Commons ANU thread (Pieter was eventually unblocked). Is he following Cirt around?

Given that Cirt's regulars are turning up in support (Durova next?), I weighed in as well. Result? Warning from Cirt on my talk page.

[Kwork]

Further to the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day thread, Orderinchaos (T-C-L-K-R-D) has now weighed in in Cirt's support at the T:TDYK thread.

People familiar with this present thread will remember that Orderinchaos did his best to help Cirt get sanctions against Pieter Kuiper, in two en:WP Arbitration Enforcement threads, and in the mammoth Commons ANU thread (Pieter was eventually unblocked). Is he following Cirt around?

Given that Cirt's regulars are turning up in support (Durova next?), I weighed in as well. Result? Warning from Cirt on my talk page.

HRIP7, I put this on another thread, but I will repeat the same question here also, but this time directed specifically at you.

I think that I am fairly familiar with Wikipedia and its problems, but the point of this is lost on me. Could you explain what it is that makes you think Cirt any worse than any other administrator (Gatoclass for example), or why you think Pieter Kuiper is better than any other user who is involved on one side in Wikipedia's I/P disputes? (I noticed that you got a wiki-lawering barnstar from Kuiper that you have on your user page.)

[Orderinchaos]

I think anyone who knows me would accept that I do nobody's bidding but my own. I accept that some will not agree with what I do (or even anything I do) on Wikipedia, but they will at least accept that I don't take the place seriously enough to fight others' battles. It's a waste of time and energy, and I've got plenty of offline stuff to spend that on these days.

What happened is very simple. I am an Australian politics editor and admin. A person (Pieter) started acting from a very strong POV or agenda within that space, just days after I'd managed to clear out a political party sockfarm in the beginning stages of an election year in Australia. I decided I was going to take a hard line against agendas, but to do so, needed to research to figure out where this was coming from. In doing so, I found a bunch of activity on two projects (including two debates) and substantial block logs there and elsewhere which showed form.

I was initially unwilling to intervene beyond simple debate participation because I had had a runin with Cirt in November last year. Oddly, we'd had our runin over exactly the same part of Australian politics, I felt a reliable if controversial Australian editor had been blocked unfairly, and I unblocked him. Cirt objected to this action on my part and ended up filing a conduct RfC against me demanding I be desysopped. It was later withdrawn.

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology, and this was in direct violation of the ArbCom case as well as various WP policies on neutrality. When he was prevented from advancing the cause, he set out on an all-out kamikaze mission to destroy his opponent in both projects. Hence, the AEs and my support of those, and the related Commons case involving his behaviour there.

Once the AE was concluded, I considered that matter settled - I have nothing against Pieter personally, and he has stopped bothering the Australian project, so I'm happy. I actually ended up coming down on Pieter's side in a dispute he was having with Physchim62 on a science-related dispute either one or two days after the AE had passed, primarily because on that occasion he was entirely right.

You will find that those (Nov 09 and the en/commons debacle) are the only two occasions prior to April 2010 in which Cirt and I had been in the same place at the same time. The DYK was a coincidence where I'd been told about the debate involving Mohammed by another admin, skim read it, offered an opinion, and only later realised that Cirt was involved.

I broadly agree with Kwork and several others above on the general situation.

This post has been edited by Orderinchaos: Thu 6th May 2010, 4:10pm

[pietkuip]

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

[Kwork]

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. Così è la vita.

[pietkuip]

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. Così è la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example his initial warnings here. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

[Kwork]

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. Così è la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example his initial warnings here. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

Sorry, but my dealings with you on Commons makes me doubt that the problem is all on one side. But that is not to say that Cirt is better than other Wikipedia administrators. However, I suspect that you would find no faults in an administrator who protected your editing goals, even if he/she was actually far more worse an administrator than Cirt.

[Milton Roe]

Pieter's persistence was the main reason for my intervention. Rather than compromise or negotiate, he escalated, and set off every warning flag indicating workplace bullying from my time as an advocate in that area in an offline workplace. He appeared to be in the space for the sole reason of advancing the cause of Scientology.

Ludicrous. It was Cirt who was threatening and bullying. But yes, I was persistent, and I did not budge.

If you're "persistant and didn't budge," in defense of Scientology, you're not going to get much sympathy on WR. There aren't too many systems of believe nuttier than the one that runs WP, but Scientology qualifies.

Your phrase "threatening and bullying" seems to mean that Cirt got in your way. Così è la vita.

It was Cirt who wanted me out of the way. See for example his initial warnings here. This was followed by him reporting me on various administrator boards. Clearly someone who does not really believe in freedom of speech for opponents. But yes, such is life.

Such is life for anything controlled by Scientologists. Do you think THEY believe in "freedom of speech"? They do not-- they believe in barratry to destroy critics. I've seen them do it to a friend of mine, and that policy is real, not some idea I got out of rumor or the newspapers.

So if you have anything to do with defending Scientology, Pieter, I have only one message for you: Fuck You.

[Giano]

Probably just someone who is living off of unearned income (trust fund, settlement annuity, inheritance, or some sort of public pension). We see a lot of that on Wikipedia: socially marginal individuals who are not required to work due to their circumstances, and who fill their otherwise meaningless lives with social maneuvering in the WikiSphere. Many of them have deeply held, often strange, belief systems which they use Wikipedia to express.

Not that this necessarily describes Cirt. But it might.

Unless of course editing from the UK. There, numerous graduates, with useless degrees created to manipulate the short term unemployment figures, are now, having left university "unemployed" and paid to stay at home with enough money to run their laptops, but sadly not enough to go out and socialise. They have the natural ability to be a top class plumber or welder but have been given the aspirations to be a international lawyer, so there they sit, degree in hand and no job, but just enough money/free internet access to edit Wikipedia.

Giacomo

[Somey]

So if you have anything to do with defending Scientology, Pieter, I have only one message for you...

Well, he did say he isn't a Scientology person earlier in the thread, FWIW.

I believe there are a few WR members who are at least somewhat sympathetic towards Scientology as a quasi-religion, in a "live and let live" sort of way - Mr. HRIP7 probably being the clearest example IMO (he too says he's not a Scientologist; I think he states on his WP user page that he was a member of some sort of Indian spiritual organization at one point, though AFAIK Cirt and others consider him to be an active cult member.)

I personally don't like the Scientologists one little tiny bit, but y'know, if you're going to claim to be a "neutral encyclopedia," then sometimes you have to take the bad with the good - if only to avoid the appearance of egregious bias or even outright persecution (though strictly of the online variety in this case, of course). I actually felt that WP was doing a reasonable job of toeing that line during most of the 2007-2008 period, but that may have been more due to the pressure of an all-out CoS wiki-propaganda campaign than anything the WP Faithful were doing... Anyway, Mr. Cirt seems to be trying to change that, and has been for some time.

[HRIP7]

Jimbo seems to have woken up to the fact that Cirt is a POV pusher:

Talk page discussion at Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, one of Cirt's pet projects these last few weeks.

Related Commons discussion.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Jimbo seems to have woken up to the fact that Cirt is a POV pusher ...

A man asleep in a dream dreams he has woken up ... Wikipedia: the random collection of non-notable porn pictures taken from flickr.

It will always be easier to remove a gallery of Mohammeds from the Wikipedia than a fraction of the porn ... even the Jihadists could not manage that.

I guess what we need is a "Make Fake Porn Pictures of Mohammed on the Wikipedia" Day.

Isn't the entire gallery original research?

I believe the entire gallery should be omitted from the article as original research. There is nothing to it other than a random collection of non-notable drawings from flickr. I think any drawings chosen for inclusion in the article should be notable in some way - i.e. at a bare minimum mentioned in a news report about this topic, created for this event by a notable artist, etc. Without that, the images add nothing encyclopedic to the article, but are rather just exactly what they are: non-notable drawings from flickr.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us pose a similar query: Is the selection of which pictures to use for the article Masturbation original research? -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is not a good example, as it brings up a wide range of unrelated issues, in both directions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's avoid the issue.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 31st May 2010, 1:25am

[HRIP7]

I think that is not a good example, as it brings up a wide range of unrelated issues, in both directions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's avoid the issue.

Well, you have a point, though to his credit, Jimbo tried his best to clean up the "random collection of non-notable porn pictures taken from flickr" – at some cost to himself, and with some moderate degree of success. For example, the Commons category for "Sexual penetrative use of objects" is much impoverished. No more home-made photos of women sticking various items of coloured plastic up their vagina in sight.

Earlier on, Greg L (T-C-L-K-R-D) sparred quite nicely with Cirt on the EDMD talk page:

Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, Cirt. Your posting messages here on this talk page with copious “pleases” and your conclusory “Thanks” (as in ‘Thank you so very much for understanding the law I just laid down’) establishes only what you want. It does not establish what is “right” nor does it establish what is truly a consensus. Everything here, including whether a muted video (something that really smacks of “censorship”) being in the gallery best serves this article is an issue that remains open for discussion so that a true consensus can be properly determined. Please understand that. Greg L (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that consensus is important. Also important not to unilaterally remove material from the article, as has been done by Greg L (talk · contribs). It is possible that Greg L (talk · contribs) might benefit from a break from this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, please leave your childish, smarty-pants attitude out of this. I simply agree with Martin H. here; fully agree with him. That video had no place being here in the first place and you should have just listened to him and deleted it instead of pushing back and engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. The compromise (mute the narration even though the fellow is facing the camera and his mouth is moving) looked utterly absurd. My proposed remedy (don’t head down the slippery slope of having any videos for a variety of stated reasons) was probably too broad of a brush stroke. The latest solution (keep the stop-action-like video but douche the seven-minute-long video of the *clever* guy and his censored-out witticisms) seems perfectly satisfactory to me. Lighten up the reigns a bit here on this article fella. What Martin H. was saying seemed to have offended your first instincts and sensibilities over “censorship.” The trouble is, Martin H.’s instincts were spot-on correct. The simple fact is that not everyone’s contributions to Wikipedia are good and encyclopedic and deleting crap is not “censorship”; that’s sort of a Well… Duh thing everyone else seems to understand. Greg L (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please avoid a lack of civility as you have displayed, referring to other editors as "thoroughly brain-damaged". Your level of emotional responses appear to be increasing. Perhaps you would benefit from a break from this article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I wrote engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. I was criticizing the product of not listening to Martin H. and your reverting his deletion of that improper video that had no place ever being here. He was right and you were wrong. The resulting compromise (because you behave as if you WP:OWN this article) was an idiotic solution. I wasn’t saying you were brain damaged. And desist please, with your childish “you need to take a break” wiki-crap; it is transparent posturing and really amounts to nothing more than WP:BAIT. I can’t help if you chafe at someone stepping into what you think is your sandbox. If you have something legitimate to say, the say it, but cut the bull, please. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And lots more in that vein all through that talk page. For once, Cirt actually seemed to display some capacity for insight and apologised. Eventually.

Though I'd still say there is a 50:50 chance that Cirt will try to get the boot in on Greg L at the next best opportunity, just like s/he tried with Xeno's RfB.