Eric Corbett

[CrowsNest]

Has poor old Eric been the first victim of the message.....?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 559#p10559

Never a Wikipedian.

[CrowsNest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ic_Corbett

What a spacker.

With ArbCom now apparently being proactive in matters of enforcement, I wonder how they would react to a complaint filed on behalf of the long suffering Sandstein?

* "the Sandstein robot"
* "the odious Sandstein"

The above two personal attacks have been issued after his one month block, and follow plenty issued before it.

Nobody deserves to be harassed on Wikipedia just for doing their job.

Truth is, Eric is a mental case. A proper Section 8. Every single person who calls him an asshole, is apparently in league with Sandstein. And when they turn up to ask what the fuck he is talking about, he pretends like it was somehow partly their fault.

[CrowsNest]

What a vicious little bastard.....

Gravedancers like Ritchie333 ought to expect to have their graves danced on. Eric Corbett 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't even use the excuse he is drunk, unless his life really is going down the tubes and he's started his Friday night session really early.

Where are all the scum who defended this piece of shit in the past to ridiculous degrees? It might help explain why Eric is so pissed off, he's realized he has truly been forsaken, they're now all busy defending Ritchie for pretty much the same reasons they carried water for him. Greatest editor, indespensible, loved by many, blah blah blah.

Oh, and the gravedancing? This.......!

Eric, you said "The reason I object is because it's using the gender fallacy as a smoke screen to protect poor articles that ought not to be written at all, or at the very least written properly", but you said it in the context of Valereee; as WereSpielChequers has already said, it doesn't take long to look at her AfD track record, and see she's quite amenable to !voting "delete" on non-notable women bios such as here, here, here, here and here. I agree with Iridescent that you're out of rope this time round; in particular, you've made one minor edit in mainspace in the last four weeks, so I can't even use the "but he writes good content" defence (compare and contrast with Cassianto, who I will give a free pass for doing lots of great work on Sophie Dahl recently, thus proving you don't need to be a raging feminist nut-job to write about women on here). In particular, dick-waving in front of Sandstein is just a monumentally stupid thing to do that is asking for trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

.......

I know all about Eric's work at GAN / FAC having received several fruitful and constructive reviews from him myself. I have also on at least two occasions been almost beaten up for having the total and utter chutzpah for daring to suggest we shouldn't kick Eric out of the door because his copyediting skills are excellent. But I just sometimes wonder why can't he just focus on that and ignore suspecting admins instead of saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie is Mother Theresa compared to the ferret fucker. But he's unfit to be an Administrator in part because of the views expressed above about the supposed immunity that should be offered to vicious little bastards if they are busy in the salt mines. Goes totally against the founding principles of Wikipedia.

Kicking your sorry ass to the kerb once you finally stopped grafting is the most Eric thing Ritchie ever did. Principles, just the wrong principles.

[CrowsNest]

Ah, the greatest hits collection now getting an airing.....

For me, the solution is for the Americans to have their own version of Wikipedia, with their beloved "safe spaces", which the rest of us can ignore. Eric Corbett 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Track 2 is child Admins. Track 3 is Jimmy. Etc. Etc.

Change the record, as they say. Nobody's buying it anymore, if they ever did. It has lost the appeal of being the cool new sounds played loudly by the rebellious youth. Now it's just the tired old dirge your dad likes to listen to when he's drunk and in the dog house.

How he doesn't get a better reception at Wikipediocracy is beyond me, this old tripe is right up their alley.

[CrowsNest]

Ah, the festival of defending the indefensible has begun again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ic_Corbett

Wikipedia's best Administrator.....

I endorse the comments above by Newyorkbrad and RexxS. This is the time for de-escalation not another prolonged shitstorm. Accordingly, I oppose a three month block and I strongly suggest to Sandstein that he let other administrators deal with Eric and his eccentricities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, Eric and his eccentric habit of being a vile human being. What a scamp!

NewYorkBrad simply said don't block Eric, and makes up an unwritten rule about Administrators who can block Eric, and those who can't. In other words, it's Tuesday. The corrupt Father Of The Wiki long ago decided Eric can never ever be blocked. Eric must have pictures of him in a compromising position with a goat.

RexxS has wikilawyered his ass off, including inventing an entirely false interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and making the hilarious argument that because blocking Eric doesn't change him, he should not be blocked.

At the end of the day though, I'm fine with these corrupt fucks doing what they do here with depressing regularity - clearly they don't realize that Eric is DESPERATE to be blocked. So not doing so is the absolutely cruelest thing that can be done. Always a good thing when it comes to Eric. Karma.

[CrowsNest]

This, I absolutely love.....

Between October 2015 and July 2019, Eric was not blocked for any reason. During those four years, he made over 15,000 edits – the overwhelming majority of which were to mainspace – despite carrying sanctions -RexxS (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]

It took me all of ten minutes to find an example of Eric not behaving himself during this period, on the very same article and toward the very same editor over the very same issue....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =750582204

Why he wasn't being blocked for so long is a mystery, my best guess being that by 2015 everybody who knew of his sanctions had figured out how pointless it was even reporting violations. Certainly though, to suggest it was because during this time he was a different person, well, it just doesn't bear even the briefest examination......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =757912081

RexxS probably knows he's lying by inferring a long trouble free period has just been interrupted, even if he can't recall any specific incidents. He won't care.

[CrowsNest]

Now a 72 hour block, that will achieve nothing. And people still aren't sure if this is the length the rulebook allows, or even whether this is a case of must or should. Still, to state the obvious, any part of the rulebook that implies Eric doesn't necessarily need to be blocked, wasn't written simply out of an acceptance that blocking him has no effect.

The ability not to block, if it even exists for Eric, is an allowance that if anyone has any other bright ideas to ensure compliance, they can try. Up to and including the time honoured strategy of arguing that why doesn't everyone just pretend he isn't there, and so pretend him exploiting that freedom doesn't massively disrupt Wikipedia, and cannot in any way be justified, even if Eric was cranking out quality content at a terrific rate, which he is not.

As I said a long time ago (take note Vigilant), this is one of Eric's tactics. He has realized that his sanctions are now so fiendishly complex, and bizarrely all treated as if they are separate and distinct, as his apologists have tried and tried to avoid the simple and obvious solution, that he is actually now exploiting this mess to his own benefit.

He deliberately jumps around, violating different sanctions in turn, in the hope he can at the very least use up the maximum amount of leeway in each of them, before he reaches the point any one of them on their own mandates a serious consequence. His best hope of course is that he causes enough confusion and disruption that someone has the bright idea of throwing them all out and starting afresh. His greatest fear of course is that someone just calls time on this absurdity and proposes a site ban. Although since nowadays he is seeking exactly that as part of his martrydom strategy, that is not so much a fear, as another hope.

I'm actually surprised nobody has latched onto RexxS' comment and suggested the sanctions are overdue for appeal. Perhaps because they, like me, realize that the lack of blocks absolutely didn't signal his behaviour had changed, only that people had stopped reporting it. But at least has the right to make that case in an appeal. Naturally, by not appealing on principle, he exploits another weakness of the system, for maximum benefit (and little cost).

Smart little cookie, is our Eric. Uses his smarts for evil, but hey, nobody's perfect, right!

[CrowsNest]

The final insult to all those who have previously defended the ferret fucker as the bestest, purest, most indispensable, Wikipeda editor there ever was.

He is ON STRIKE. Picked his ball up, and TAKEN IT HOME.

Obviously I will be taking no part in this review given the poisonous and insulting atmosphere created by certain individuals, and one in particular, except to say this. It seems very clear to me that EEng is not complaining about the accuracy of this article but rather its citation density. When this was promoted an FA, the requirement for one citation per sentence - which is effectively what it has become - didn't exist. But everything here is easily verifiable by anyone who is not merely trying to stir a pot, and I could point to where additional citations can very easily be found. But I won't, as I am completely indifferent to the fate of this bastardised version of the Moors murders. Eric Corbett 17:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How long must we keep being proved right? He is, always was, and always will be, a selfish and vicious little bastard. He is not, never was, and never will be, a Wikipedian.

Quite funny really that his best work is now considered shit simply due to the passage of time and the attendant evolving of standards. Would that the same evolution happened regarding his behavioural suitability to be part of the community.

[CrowsNest]

Eric is a great article-writer and a magnanimous man, and I have always benefited from and enjoyed our interactions.

The arse-licker in Chief. His words are of course as truthful as his idol's.

If Eric was such a great writer, it wouldn't be so piss-easy to find fault with his efforts. This is a big reason why he comes across as a hostile piece of shit - to make it plain to everyone that pointing out an error, unless you come prepared to cup his balls in your mouth and tickle them with your tongue, is just not worth the hassle.

He will argue, as a rule, and he will never admit he was wrong, even when he is 100% wrong. And he never, ever, apologises. Magnanimous is the last word anyone would use to describe him. You think I exaggerate? Go find me one. This is why he is attractive to so many of the women who can bear the environment of Wikipedia, they love being mistreated, and they love a wrongun.

This is the problem with Wikipediocracy. Lying pieces of shit like this only saying what they do because of a personal friendship, are given copious amounts of air time, and rewarded when they call people telling the truth, challenging them to disprove it, trolls.

[CrowsNest]

Eric is a Facebook friend and is always polite and friendly to me, my wife and my friends. So it goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The fuck you say?

Puts a whole new light on this......

I endorse the comments above by Newyorkbrad and RexxS. This is the time for de-escalation not another prolonged shitstorm. Accordingly, I oppose a three month block and I strongly suggest to Sandstein that he let other administrators deal with Eric and his eccentricities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

.....being registered as a comment from an "Uninvolved Administrator".