That seems to be the conclusion that people have drawn. Out of concerns for my personal safety, I cannot comment on whether or not that conclusion is correct.

Cirt: 168935 contributions found in 61 projects.
Smee: 31878 contributions found in 11 projects.

Cirt is the penultimate wikimedia game player using "the project" to further his agenda. And Cirt is a he, though if I were to link to evidence supporting this, he would whine to Somey and it would be deleted.

Wasn't there some speculation that the Cirt account was operated by a team?

Ah well, s/he used to be a fan of this place.

I see that it was corresponding with Ckerr (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I faintly recall Ckerr -- wasn't he the token African-American Wikipediot back in Wikipedia's Wonder Years?

you might be thinking of Bcorr (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Bingo.

Gosh, and I thought those guys were incapable of physical comedy! I must stand corrected.


Who is this Jmh649 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

He strikes me as an intolerant ranter, and prone to involvement in TM articles.
Gee, sorta like Cirt.

Hmm. He tends to follow Cirt, Future Perfect, and Will Beback around to these things, ain't that strange?
Isn't it funny how this was never closed out or resolved?
And isn't it funny that those same 3 bastards voted for Doc James in his RFA?

You may know him as "the guy that put the Rohrschach test inkblots on Wikipedia". His dislike for WR may spring from things said about him here in discussions around that incident, but I'm just speculating.

I'm a bit surprised that no-one has called "bullshit" on Jehochman's very blatant attempts to run interference for Cirt in this matter. Along with the above charade, he also tried telling editors discussing the matter in a light not favorable to Cirt at AN/I to "please stop now and drop it." This is of course, while he tried desperately to control the AE discussion ...

1) When people start discussing remedies that would also apply to Cirt, possibly topic banning him from Scientology BLPs, Jehochman jumps the gun and posts first in the "Results" section proposing wrist slaps all around instead.

2) After being bitched out by Scott Mac in the "Results" discussion, but without much real discussion by others yet, he tries to propose a more refined set of solutions, again deflecting attention from anything that might effect Cirt.

3) After a couple of more admins support Scott Mac's proposal to sanction Cirt, and a couple of Cirt's buddies object to such remedies, he motions to close the entire discussion, again without any skin off Cirt's back.

4) In his zeal to shut down negative comments about Cirt, Jehochman confuses Jayen466 and uninvolved admin Jayron32, thus striking Jayron's comments, claiming that Jayron is "highly involved". Of course the irony is that Jayron32 was one of the admins solicited by Cirt earlier in the process. After Jayron says exsqueeze me?, he of course apologizes for his blunder.

5) For a variety of bogus reasons he expresses "uneasiness" with people suggesting that Cirt should be sanctioned and even threatens to have everyone's behavior scrutinized by ARBCOM.

6) When it becomes clear that carbuncle's initial sanction was procedurally out of order, Jehochman tries again to resolve the matter in a way that gets Cirt off the hook.

There are clearly other examples of his meddling in this matter, and it is nothing new. Other than Cirt's more obvious POV bedfellows like Will Beback, and the like, Jehochman is a top notch Cirt enabler. In fact I'm sure he shares Cirt's POV, but simply keeps out of any of those content areas as much he can. I'm of the belief that many admins who support Cirt operate in that manner. They protect him because he's a useful tool to them ... someone who will cross the line to support their POV. And let's face it, who likes Scientology? I certainly don't but like carbuncle I think Cirt's behavior goes way above and beyond anything reasonable and is clearly damaging to the encyclopedia.

Nothing surprising there. Paid editors stick together.

For example, you didn't seem me piling on Benjiboi recently, did you?

There's an opportunity there for some crass innuendo, but I will abstain from stating the obvious.

Are you implying that Jehochman is a paid editor? Does he even write articles?

You don't need to edit to get paid, you just need to make sure that writers don't get blocked.

In the last week, amongst 100+ edits to noticeboards, talk pages, templates and AfDs these are Jehochman's 3 lonely edits to article content.

1) Tagging Guru.com

2)Removing a deleted photo from Brad Vice

3)Removing "linkspam" from Search Engine Optimization.

It is no wonder that content editors like Giano go ballistic when jokers like this start criticizing them. I have to admit that not even I thought that his content edits, which are pretty pathetic on their own as well, would be below 3% of his total count for the past week. Jeebers.

Indeed. Also, remember... Hochman has employees doing the actual work.

Is there something else I can read on Hochman's connection to paid editing or is this just something you're throwing around right now?

Sure, there's a whole, professional page where Hochman admits to paid editing.

I notice you make no similar demands for proof about Cirt's paid editing.

I'm a paid editor as well...
.
.
.
.
.
.
...just not on Wikipedia.

Try this, more specific.

Meh, not really. Just a page of google results, the top one seems the most germane, but the documents listed that have Wikipedia in the title don't tie Hochman to paid editing.

Damning evidence?


From http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles...-Your-Business-

Not so much.

<cubagoodingjr> Show me the money! </cubagoodingjr>

Somebody contact Hochman privately, offer him $500 for a Wikipedia article about someone like Kayslee Collins, and then preserve his exact rejection of the offer, and then I'll retract my claim.

I've been part of discussions concerning the possibility of Cirt being a paid editor (in fact I've made that suggestion myself possibly in this very thread) ... so no I'm not particularly interested in rehashing that. I'm not sure I believe he gets paid anymore either after it has been shown that pretty much every random looking article he puffs up has ties to ex-Scientologists or the opponents of Scientologists. I was curious about Hochman ... though I see nothing more than idle speculation so far. Where is the money indeed?

What a shlemiel! Does he really think Cirt celebrates Christmas?

Along with Jayjg. Hanukkah Zombie (golum?) comes down the chimney for latkes and milk. I saw it on Futurama.

I sort of assumed Hochman didn't celebrate Christmas either. I do love that he's calling carbuncle's planned AE request "plain nasty". You're such a jerk carbuncle! Stop picking on Cirt during Christmas.

Scientology coatracks?

Meade Emory

Peter Moon (author)

Need I say more?

Whothey?

Nice vandalism revert.

Delicious Carbuncle filed at AE earlier today; the filing was removed by Fut. Perf. half an hour later, on the grounds that the appealed sanction was still in force. The sanction against DC has since been overturned.

Good grief, I missed that. That's outrageous.

If you are even surprised by this, Doc, then I guess you aren't as clued in to the depth of the problem as I thought you were. This is only scratching the surface.

Part of the problem is that Cirt is an admin and has a reputation as a good content editor, so people assume that their edits are kosher. Take a look at Michael Doven, an article which has been brought up a few times already as an example. News of the World as a source in a BLP? An "unauthorised biography" that wasn't published in the UK because of the inevitable libel cases also used as a source?

Unofficial WP Scientology attack dog or not, it is a mystery to me how Cirt has been allowed to get away with this much blatant abuse of policy for so long.

Here a novice user tried to remove Jada Pinkett-Smith from "List of Scientologists". She was listed as a member, even though there are plentiful and easily sourceable denials like this one. That too was reverted as vandalism.

The user, Passomouse (T-C-L-K-R-D) , made several edits related to Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith, and I am not saying they are all perfect. They too were reverted as vandalism, and their user talk page was quickly filled with warnings from Cirt. Passomouse told Cirt they had contacted Pinkett-Smith's PR office, who had confirmed she is not a Scientologist. Cirt's response was this. Pinkett-Smith was not removed until much later, along with other non-Scientologists such as Gloria Gaynor and Chaka Khan, after an RfC, BLPN threads, Jimbo weighing in and lots of wrangling and halfway-house solutions on the talk page.

The thing with Smith, by the way, is that he has supported some Scientology charities, but self-identifies as Christian. He supports charities by all sorts of religions, and the vast majority goes to Christian charities. Yet the ones that receive prominent mention in Wikipedia are invariably those that involve Scientology.

Incidentally, Cirt used Twinkle, not Rollback, on those reverts.

I'm flabbergasted. Jehochman has now single handedly denied carbuncle's AE request. "Brazen" doesn't even begin to describe this nonsense. Someone ought to permanently ban Jehochman from ever taking admin action or commenting as an "uninvolved admin" in any matter related to Cirt. Of course that would be too practical for anyone on Wikipedia to consider.

Addendum:

Hochman's comments to Scott Mac are pretty hilarious. First he says that Cirt is just one of many "wiki-friends" to downplay any bias, then he speaks for Cirt saying, "Scott. Cirt feels you've been in editorial conflict with him." Where does he say that Hochman, because I can't see it anywhere? Oh I get it he must have poked you on Facebook to give you a heads up that he was texting you about it later. You're clearly not great friends, I mean I speak for the feelings of my casual acquaintances all the time based on what they tell me in private correspondences.

Are you suggesting that Cirt and Jehochman had off-wiki communication wherein Jehochman agreed to close out the arbitration request for Cirt? I can't imagine that two respected WP admins would act in such an underhanded fashion, but it would explain why Cirt took what is for them an unusually long break from WP but started editing again immediately after Jehochman's attempted closure.

Cirt and Jhochman have clearly been in communication off-wiki this entire time. For instance Cirt's appeals to collaborate with you are 100% Hochman's advice, and I don't just mean what he wrote on-wiki. I have no way to prove this of course. He's obviously trying desperately to help Cirt make this go away in several ways, but in my mind he's failing rather miserably, and indeed exposing himself to a whole lot of smelly shit. The fact that Hochman spoke for Cirt's feelings about Scott Mac is but an indication of their off-wiki communicating. Of course, maybe I'm wrong. If someone can find the diff where Cirt made the assertion on-wiki I'll stand corrected, but I highly doubt it exists.

It's just the usual WP Jews-helping-Jews. What are you, antisemitic? I'll bet you're antisemitic. Otherwise you wouldn't mind that Jews help Jews on WP, to the detriment of anybody-else. You'd just welcome it as a part of Wikidiversity. It's all the cycle of life...

Admit it. You admire Hitler, don't you? Otherwise you'd just leave this whole mess alone.

As for myself, everytime I mention the very obviousness of Jews-helping-Jews on WP, I myself am suspected of admiring Hitler. That's part of the game, don't you know. Say anything about any of this, and you're part of a hate group.

Milton the Hater. That's me.

Actually, Cirt not only reverted Ajpropst (T-C-L-K-R-D) , but also had them blocked as a BLP vandal.

It appears that Meade Emory killed L Ron Hubbard or something (I'm not really sure what they are trying to say and I have no desire to read a bunch of stuff about Scientology infighting).

There are a whole bunch of BLPs that exist solely to label people as Scientologists. Let me mention Jeff Pomerantz as an example and see what happens. I'm sure a lot of people from WP are reading this thread since DocJames keeps linking to it.

DocJames, why don't you take a look at Pomerantz's BLP and ask yourself why it is even on WP? Why is he in the category "American Scientologists" even though that is a violation of WP:BLPCAT? Look at the discussion on talk page - this was identified as a coatrack article in June, but any changes stymied by User:Coffeepusher, an editor who has an anti-Scientology remark on their userpage. Go ahead, AfD it and see what happens.

Those articles can only ever be negative or positive, there is simply not enough information, nor are they important enough in their own right to have any full blown article. As sucuh they can only ever exist as some non-speaking extra in relation to something else.

No, I don't think so. I think it's more interesting than that. In fact, I think it has been an unusually interesting week. What we have seen is a general brawl erupting among admins over the cherished principle that the BLP policy only protects good people, not bad people, and that admins in good standing have a double-0 license to defame the bad people. This is being fought out in the Cirt case and at the AE board, with Will Beback and Jehochman (among others) squaring off against Scott Mac and Lar. I think the outcome of this battle will have lasting and profound consequences for WP.

Since I'm lazy at research, I'm happy to have people point me to any problematic BLPs I should review.

Just for reference, these are the articles on Scientology, Scientologists (in particular Tom Cruise), Scientology opponents, and Scientology spoofs in Cirt's top 100.

If they're about Scientology opponents or Scientology spoofs, they'll generally be puffy; if they're related to Scientologists, they'll generally say their films are crappy.

858 - Project Chanology
518 - List of Scientologists
437 - Battlefield Earth (film)
402 - A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology P...
300 - The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
299 - Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
288 - Xenu
272 - The Joy of Sect
250 - Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography
248 - Operation Clambake
245 - Knight and Day
241 - Jason Beghe
180 - David Miscavige
170 - Cult Awareness Network
158 - Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia
148 - Hell Is Other Robots
134 - Lions for Lambs
133 - Bowfinger
127 - Kaja Bordevich Ballo
127 - Paul Haggis
127 - The Profit
126 - Miles Fisher
120 - Scientology in popular culture
109 - Mark Bunker
105 - Hawthorne (TV series)
103 - Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology
102 - Tommy Davis (Scientology)
101 - The Way to Happiness
100 - Typewriter in the Sky
100 - Leo Ryan
97 - Old Dogs (film)
96 - Jessica Feshbach
95 - Religulous
89 - Jesus in Scientology
87 - Aaron Saxton
87 - New Village Leadership Academy
85 - The Bridge (2006 drama)
84 - Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (for Scientology connection see its AfD)
82 - Jose Peralta (for Scientology connection see this)
79 - ScienTOMogy
79 - Tom Cruise Purple
78 - Scientology
75 - John Carmichael (Scientology)
73 - Another Gospel
72 - Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network
71 - Sharron Angle
71 - Brother from the Same Planet
65 - Mace-Kingsley Ranch School
65 - Stephen A. Kent

231 - Outrageous Betrayal
209 - Est and The Forum in popular culture
204 - Semi-Tough
176 - Getting It: The Psychology of est
87 - Werner Erhard (book)
73 - Werner Erhard

Generally, anyone will be hard pressed to find an article on anything to do with Scientology in Wikipedia that Cirt has not edited and on their watchlist.

A good starting point for BLP review is Category:American Scientologists.

Yeah I don't think this has anything to do with Judaism ... indeed I'm a bit perplexed by the suggestion. As far as I can remember Wikipedia has always functioned in the fashion Herschelkrustofsky describes. Most admins and editors have either been turning a blind eye to or have been actively supporting the policy violations at entries of "bad people". Minor eruptions break out when people finally start objecting but usually these dissipate without much meaningful difference. I'm hoping this time, in this context, something more lasting will come out of all this, but it is very difficult to figure out if there is enough momentum here.

I hope it's like that Tarantino film where each side lavishes extensive firepower on the other, and everyone gets killed.

The first one in that category is Bob Adams (American football) (T-H-L-K-D). Readable prose size: 1682 words; mentions of Scientology on the page: 94.

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

BLPCAT violations galore.

Is that a death threat, Peter? I think you just threatened to kill Jimbo, or at the very least, that you look forward to his being shot!

You are a horrible, horrible person! ! ! ! ! !

Don't tell me Tarantino is a Scientologist too!

And why do you want me dead?

Here is another interesting little article: Prolexic Technologies (T-H-L-K-D).

According to this BBC report, their clients include Visa and Mastercard.

This is what the Wikipedia article looks like right now.