Victoria (Victoria Earle)

[CrowsNest]

Just too fucking detached from reality but entirely wedded to her own sense of victimhood and the inherent truthiness of her narrative, not to immortalize here.

This action was unwise in the same way that the FRAMBAN was unwise, and the two are inextricably linked. What the en.wp community of volunteer editors has learned this summer (winter, for my friends in the Southern Hemisphere) is that it's okay to produce crap content for the enyclopedia and that, above all else, we have to be nice to each other. Personally, I don't think filing multiple AE reports and an RfAr is nice; nor do I think that eviscerating a featured article (the word is mine, I admit I used before Eric did) is nice. I don't think it's nice to drop a snarky comment on a user talk page for no discernible reason; nor is it nice to file an SPI on an IP, who may or not have been Eric, for posting to a talk page. It's not nice that the committee was informed of the other account - the one that made a few copyedits. It's not nice that the committee decided to abrogate their duties, roll up their sleeves, and dig into the sequence of events that brought about the RfAr, but instead decided to indef block for abusive actions without giving the respect of being transparent about those actions. I'd like to see diffs of the abusive account.

Because of what I do here I'll never be an admin and as such can never be an arb so I can't claim to understand the amount of pressure and abuse those roles entail, but I can empathize and it would be nice to see equal empathy for content editors who do, most of them quietly, improve the encyclopedia day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, bear the burden of a lifetime or stewardship or having to accept that eventually, sometime, someone will rewrite their work. But none of that is ever discussed on any of our fora; instead we fight, and fight more, and fight again, because the objective is to win. And, yes, I never thought it would come to this, but I have to say it's a toxic atmosphere.

Eric shouldn't have done whatever he did, but each and every action others took that brought us to this point shouldn't have been taken either. In my view the Committee has taken the easy way out. That Eric might some day get indeffed has never really been in doubt, but this set of circumstances was truly mean. Nothing nice about it at all. And to top it off there's fight about keeping his user page, for fuck's sake.

Apologies for the rant, but I believe very strongly that a frank discussion needs to take place in terms how to solve the various conflicting roles of admin vs. content; staff vs. volunteer; crap content vs. quality content; nice vs. mean. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia will go nowhere until people like this are challenged head on. There are Administrators who are unfailingly respectful, have a ton of empathy, and create Featured Articles. It is not exactly rocket science. There are not many, because the people with the required skills don't find much value in being part of the deranged Wikipedia community, where this woman's sort of crazy is considered normal, acceptable even.

This idea there are wearing factions on Wikipedia along the lines of her last line, is complete and utter bunk. Disproven at every turn, proven right in only the worst ways possible, in the anecdotal truth of the lives of these fruitloops. This is why the only people who ever claim this is the reality of Teh Wiki, are the screaming loons of Wikipedia, who in all their ranting, actually offer no cogent arguments at all.

She can't even accurately recall what actually happened, for which there is zero excuse if you're going to tie one on this spectacularly. Eric created his latest sock on 24 August, three days before the ArbCom case to look into who was supposedly being so mean to him as to cause him to do all the bad shit he does, was formally accepted. So how could there be any "abrogation of duties"? Oh right, they're supposed to ignore it, because......well, insert whatever bullshit you want here, that is the name of the game for her.

Eric is an asshole. He knew he was going to get properly spanked in any case that actually sat down and examined the core issue in an unbiased fashion - how much, if any, of what Eric does, can really be blamed on other people? He knows the answer to that, so he decided to commit Wiki-suicide rather than face the music. Took the coward's way out, accepting no blame and taking no personal responsibility whatsoever, relying on the stupidity and bias of others to keep him in crayons, AS HE HAS DONE FROM DAY ONE. Never was a Wikipedian. Truth.

She wants empathy for people like that? Go fuck yourself lady, and the boat you came in on.

She is Wikipedia. They're really this fucking stupid. They really do think we're all that stupid.

And Wikipediocracy, they love this shit. Her post is clear and coherent to them. Makes perfect sense. Crazy sympathises with crazy, I guess.

HTD.

[CrowsNest]

Does this women literally have any clue about her subject matter?

What I do not really understand and what you possibly can explain: Isn't it possible to create high quality content and remain civil at the same time? It looks like some users think it is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Simple answer, when on the shop floor (so to speak) where all the disputes originate, in the heat of the moment, when mud is flying: No. I've lost my cool more than once. But it's not a simple question nor is the answer simple. We need a balance; we need people to be more empathetic and inclusive; we need to talk to each other and not at each other (or even scream at each other); we need to learn mechanisms where it doesn't get to the point that things get out of hand and meek, mild editors like myself lose her cool and start spouting profanities. Plus, what's overlooked more often than not, is not the "bad word" part of civility but the drip drip drip of faux politeness masking passive aggression and an overwhelming drive to win at all costs. It's honestly withering and soul destroying. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Eric Corbett was the victim, not the perpetrator, of passive aggression, doesn't know the meaning of the term. And his talent for choosing whether he uses bad words, with cold calculating intent, or used his talent to create an entirely non-obsence but thoroughly soul destroying insult, was actually celebrated by his enablers. Something to admire in a Wikipedian, apparently, that level of psycopathy. If Wikipedia is a mud fight, he was a motherfucking Terminator.

If anyone on Wikipedia has personified a passive aggressive approach to WP:CIV, it is Eric Corbett. He's had years to put his proposals to the community, so they can inevitably be rejected. But no, he's preferred to play the role of, well, no cartoon reference can describe it better than his enablers describe it themselves - the dangerous bear who must be approached with extreme caution. Apparently the mere existence of bears in the territory, was somehow meant to nullify the park policy against keeping and protecting bears. You got a bear problem, you shoot the bear. You got a cute doggy whose excitable nature sometimes means he is mistaken for a bear, from a long distance, well, you don't shoot the cute little doggie. Maybe just cut his nuts off.

His overly aggressive demeanour in any disagreement big or small otherwise, doesn't change what he really is when it comes to demonstrating you can really be a Wikipedian, that you can really talk to people, not past people. Not just your sycophantic mates, but people you are in disagreement with. Virtually every dispute he has, begins with him talking past people, before moving rapidly to insults if they don't immediately acquiesce.

Whatever version if Wikipedia she thinks she's advocating, it is not one that Eric would fare any differently in.