There is an amusing recent exchange here between Cirt and Jimbo on the BLP/N. Apparently Cirt has been going around removing neutral or positive (but completely uncontroversial) information about actors who are Scientologists or the "hit" films they have been in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bio...les_on_BLPs_.3F

Nice.

I seems that a number of cabal agendas are out of sync here, causing turbulence.

Ha. Jimbo isn't aware of the degree to which sourcing is used as a weapon in Wikipedia. There is a choice digression on whether or not is is necessary to source the offhand statement that Rain Man was a hit film. In court, I wouldn't have to argue that one; if for some reason it was necessary for that fact to be introduced as evidence I would just ask the court to take judicial notice of it and the judge would almost certainly do so (as long as there were no objections) because such a fact is within the corpus of those which are "generally known". Jimbo is operating under the "common sense" principle that "generally known", uncontroversial facts should not require citation, or at least not on as rigorous a basis as facts which are not generally known and especially those which are controversial. However, Wikipedians do not recognize this principle, partially because failing to recognize it makes it easier to excise unwanted content from articles, and partially because many Wikipedians are unable to appreciate balancing principles generally and only understand (or at least accept) absolutist, brightline rules.

There is also a related discussion on Jimbo's talk page.

Perhaps this goes back to an earlier RfC at List of Scientologists (T-H-L-K-D) that Jimbo got involved in, disagreeing with Cirt's view that everyone who had ever done a Scientology course in their lives should be listed as a member of Scientology. There was a discussion about that on Jimbo's talk page too.

Mods, please delete my thread here, started without knowing that this thread had already begun. I will repeat my concern here in this thread.

+++++

Jimbo's been active lately on the biographies of two living celebrities, Michael D. Roberts and Marissa Ribisi.

Jimbo seems fixated on using IMDB as a reliable source for information about these two.

Note that IMDB is owned by Amazon, and that Amazon invested $10 million in Jimmy Wales' Wikia, Inc. venture. So, in itself, Jimmy Wales using IMDB links to spruce up Wikipedia biographies is a fairly significant conflict of interest.

However, when you add that Roberts and Ribisi are both Scientologists... what does that say?

I'm sure whatever its says it doesn't say about Jimbo, but about the editor who has been going around targeting those entries for "BLP" cleanup. IMDB is widely used as a source for information about films by pretty much everyone in the English speaking world. Amazon hardly needs Jimbo to push linking to them from Wikipedia. The issue is also over uncontroversial information in a BLP and not really about IMDB in general.

Cirt appears to have adopted some of Will Beback's tactics. Another good one that Will specializes in is compiling a vast cataloge of of every negative comment ever made in the press about his quarry, and then insisting that it be included in an article.

Of course not. And that is why he's outraged and thinks it's POINT-y to try to teach him, his royal God-Kingness, about this problem, by direct experience. Indeed, Wikipedia isn't much fun when your opponents slap {fact} tags on statements such as the Sun comes up in the east.

Illustrated here (also) is the whole purpose of WP:POINT, which is to allow hypocrisy to exist on WP, without being bothered by concepts of fairness, due process, and the general idea of any kind of shared principles or rules of editing, which apply to everyone equally.

Since Jimbo lives and breathes hypocrisy, WP:POINT is very important to him. Why, imagine the idea that he should have to live and abide by the standards that other people on WP do! The very idea!

Hey, Jimbo: If the fact that Rain Man was a hit is TRUE, it should be EASY to find a source for it. The more everybody knows it, the easier it should be! A great and wise man once said as much.

Always amusing to watch Jimbo squirm under scrutiny. Pity those on the other side are higher level nutjobs.

On Chick Corea, Cirt removed loads of musical information that lacked inline citations, but left in completely unsourced material related to Scientology. I fixed it.

Nice job. I wonder how long until Cirt objects. Clearly the most notable aspect of anyone's life is their involvement with Scientology.

SlimVirgin and Will Beback no longer care whether there are inline citations. They just remove sourced material because they feel like it, as in this edit which SV describes as "removed undue."

And here's your reply.

Disgusting.

"Imbecilic" is too kind a word.

Please don't tell me you guys are surprised by any of this.

Not only has Cirt been doing this shit since 2007, nobody seems to say "boo" about it on-wiki.

Yeah, why is that?

It's almost as though this person has no ability to control his/her impulses whatsoever. It goes well beyond merely "sticking it" to prominent Scientologists - it's like a cry for help, like Cirt is saying "somebody stop me before I make Wikipedia look unimaginably stupid... again" to anyone who will listen. But hey, they made him an administrator, so nobody's listening.

That, or he/she actually wants the Scientologists to sue him/her (or worse!) merely to validate and justify some sort of personal victim-roleplay life strategy...?

You clearly missed WP:ARBSCI. It was triggered by two arbitration enforcement threads, one of which was about Cirt's editing. Justallofthem, Wikipedia's local Scientologist who had started that thread, was indef banned as a result of that arbitration case, in part for "pursuing a campaign against Cirt".

Yes, I know. The point is: if Cirt can get away with being a total dickhead, someone is protecting him.
Said "protection" has been so effective to date, it a) got an Arbcom complaint against him twisted until the
original complainant was banned instead, and b) now Cirt can attack Jimbo Himself with apparent impunity.



We know that Cirt was carefully shepherded by Durova and friendly with Gerard, both disgruntled
with Scientology. Don't you wonder if there's someone else in the Non-Existent Cabal who is
covering Cirt's slimy little ass?

I commented in that thread in Wikipedia without being aware of the background. I wasn't aware that Cirt was focusing on the bios of Scientologists. I'll go ask him about it if no one else has already.

Obscene trolling; knows German.

(1) (2)

Wow. This is getting even more ridiculous. Coffeepusher has joined Cirt in arguing that the end of the world is coming if Gloria Gaynor isn't identified as a Scientologist on the List of Scientologists -- despite denying it herself and lacking any good sources to contradict her. Apparently she "dabbled" in Scientology. Good grief, what a ridiculous obsession.

Talking is good.

The evisceration of the WP:CIRCULAR clause is especially ludicrous. A reporter in the real world would have to prove to some degree of certainty that the Guardian List is not derived from Wikipedia itself, for instance, by locating the actual sources of the list. But in WikiWakiWorld those who suspect the rather obvious circularity are required to prove that it did derive from Wikipedia, damn near impossible to do with an unsigned bit of filler.

Jon

Correct. It's just a jokey piece, cautiously headed "listed" scientologists. It might be reasonable to be having this discussion if this wasn't a BLP issue, but it's bizarre that anyone would defend this as sufficient for contentious BLP claims.

−1

You neglected to use the words "afraid" and "petrified" in that order.

They're afraid their Wikipediot DYKs can't stay petrified longer than 4 nanu-seconds if anonymous gossip is not presumed innocent until proven groundless.

Jon

And no less an expert on calming a fraught situation than Will Beback has joined in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=373062796

"The fact that there is a "disputed" section in this list is a good thing. More lists should have them."

Yes, that's the best way to stop unnecessary Wikidrama.

I wonder how anyone could possibly think this kind of information needs to be retained for its encyclopedic value. Some celebrity says "I'm not a Scientologist", and I'm supposed to believe that it adds value to an encyclopedia to say that this person's membership is "disputed"? The sources that dispute this are, no doubt, from the tabloids (American usage) and gossip sections of reputable newspapers. It is quite possible that this person was a member and wants to deny it publicly, but the question I have is who cares if they were an actual member of Scientology in the first place? I guess I know the answer ... Cirt cares.

WB is a natural ally for Cirt, because WB uses the same bag of tricks in his crusade against LaRouche and the Transcendental Meditators. Will is clever enough, however, to couch his tactics in a barrage of WP bureaucratese.

Talking with Wikipediots is good for burning holes in the Ozone Layer, nothing more.

Jon

Wikipedia has recently been blessed with an article about Jamie Sorrentini who ecently played "Slutty Woman" in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If Cirt isn't a PR Wikipedian for hire then I'll eat my keyboard.

1. Circulate rumors that this actress is a scientologist.
2. Observe Cirt's reaction.
3. Profit.

It appears that step one is unnecessary. This blog post may have been the impetus for Cirt's interest.

Reading that blog post erases the last traces of doubt about why CoW hates CoS — they compete for the same supply of Whip'n'Chill'4'Brains recruits.

Jon

Here's a new term for the lexicon: vendettitor