Let's check in on the reformed Cirt Options

[carbuncle]

Remember when Cirt said:

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)

and

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)

Well, that was weeks ago, and in a different calendar year, so I guess it would be unreasonable of me to hold Cirt to those statements. What has Cirt been up to in the first few days of 2011?

• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Jenna Miscavige Hill
• voting "KEEP" on Scientology-related deletion discussion for Exscientologykids.com
• thanking someone for their work on an L Ron Hubbard book article
• thanking someone for their work on an anti-CoS activist Jenna Miscavige Hill article
• editing a Futurama episode dealing with "Robotology"
• editing the BLP of an actor who did a spoof of Cirt's arch-enemy Tom Cruise
• welcoming someone whose only recent edit (out of a total of two) is a supportive comment for Jenna Miscavige Hill on the talk page of their article
• continuing a conversation on the talk page of an article about a former Scientologist who committed suicide years after leaving Scientology
• supporting the renaming of a page about a Scientology-related medical clinic

Just about the only thing that Cirt did that isn't related to CoS is restoring a removed quote from a movie financed by the Moonies. I'm sure there is nothing wrong with having a highly negative review snippet in its own coloured box:

"Empty-headed Korean war epic produced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church."
—Leonard Maltin[2]

I mean, that's pretty neutral, right? I'm going to add something similar to the Sound of Music and see what kind of reception I get.

Cirt's statements about staying away from CoS stuff seemed to work in that people backed off the ARBSCI enforcement, but if Cirt can't keep away from it by themselves, it may be time for an intervention.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

I am an anti-Scientology activist. I am also not a wikipedian, just a reader who knows little about it. I made a few comments on the Jenny Miscavige deletion page and tried (and mostly failed) to improve on that article in order to prevent it from getting deleted. More importantly, I made a comment on the discussion page of User talk: Scott Mac. Scott deleted that comment, along with a discussion questioning his involvement and neutrality in this project, in particular him being a proxy for banned users. So what happens next? Will Scott delete this comment? Just so other participants know, these events are also documented on a thread on an outside forum: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/12-active-p...41/#post1386803. For all clarity: I do not oppose this project. I am sure that independant reviewers fill find many Scientology BLP articles are biased. But at the same, I do question Mr Scott's neutrality in this matter.(unsigned comment was from User:85.147.221.167 - added by Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

I am a former Church of Scientology member. I am not generally a Wikipedian, but I do feel that Scott Mac is acting as a proxy for banned users, either wittingly or unwittingly. Deirdresm (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a not-so-anonymous member of Anonymous, and a Wikipedia administrator, and am committed to maintaining NPOV in Scientology articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[Beer me]

Everybody's all worked up about this now. The Resident Anthropologist (any relation to Moulton?) is concerned about Cirt. And, TRA has withdrawn from WP:Neutrality in Scientology, while a bunch of editors that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it have signed on, evidently in opposition to the basic premise.

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

[Jagärdu]

Resident Anthropologist seems to be One of these guys he guards thier page and wrote a glowing article for them. Yet he is concerned about Cirt?

Go figure. Anyone who belongs to a group that might be considered a "cult" by anti-cultists would be concerned about Cirt. Of course anyone interested in neutrality would also be so concerned. At the end of the day, the organizations Cirt has focussed most of his attention on are run by scam artists who have probably ripped off many a lost soul. However, in battling these organizations Cirt has been wreaking havoc on the encyclopedia. At the end of the day the Wiki is worse off for it.