Wikipedia Sucks!

One of the classic examples of Eric's previous retirements.......

Scotching a rumour
I'm posting this here simply to scotch a rumour that the reason I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia is either because I'm dead or I'm suffering from a life-threatening cancer of the bladder.

As you can see, the rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated, and I've rarely been in better health, so apologies for that.

The reason I stopped contributing to this project was because I no longer have any faith in it, and I see little to be gained by attempting to contribute while simultaneously being subjected to various levels of abuse. Besides, many people, including his highness Jimbo Wales, appear to believe that I ought to have left years ago, so at least I've made them happy. No doubt everyone has noticed how much more congenial the atmosphere here has been since my departure, thus proving Jimbo to have been correct.

I have projects of my own I wish to concentrate on now, but I wish all the editors I've collaborated with in the past the best of luck in their future endeavours to improve Wikipedia's content, despite my belief that's ultimately a futile effort.

Posted 25 July 2018, after his activity level suddenly dropped to zero in May.

When you look at his subsequent activity profile, this idea he lost faith in Wikipedia completely, is the least plausible. For he didn't actually leave, only registering zero edit months in that July, and again in September.

Cancer is the most plausible - the shock of diagnosis, the struggles during his treatment, and now the green shoots of recovery.

Second most plausible is that he has done what he has done before, and tried to find peace while editing with a sock. It fits the crisis departure, the continuing low level engagement, and the nature of the edits has had made with his main accoiunt, things he couldn't plausibly do with his sock, and the sort of unprovoked sniping which portrays a very frustrated and angry person for whom an attempted reincarnation has yet again proved not to be the panacea he thought it would be. He has either been discovered and quietly tipped off, or he has realized his sock was on the same path of discovery that his previous one was and is voluntarily ramping it down, because the issue is his behavior deriving from his personality, not as he previously thought, the reputation of the "Eric Corbett" brand.

If he could create a sock that doesn't behave like Eric Corbett at all, or at least retained all the good and dumped the bad, well, I'm sure nobody would complain. But he can't. If he was capable of that, he would be capable of the far more attractive option of simply stopping being an asshole.

It's only a theory. But if someone can explain to me why the person who wrote that post and who was being genuine and truthful in it, would then go and do what they have done since, I'm all ears.

It's beginning to look like this case shouldn't be about Eric at all. It should be about his enablers, the people prepared to lie and cheat and harass, many of whom are Administrators, or established editors who are known to be protected by Administrators. It should be about Cassianto, Sitush, Nick, and Kudpung, and anyone else doing what they do for the reasons they do it.

Basic and obvious conduct violations are commonplace whenever it comes time for these people to mobilize in defence of Eric Corbett. A Case would quickly reveal they don't even care about Eric, he is after all basically retired, it is about the principle for them. This is why they're still doing it even after Eric has supposedly been lost forever.

The enablers believe in things that are fundamentally against Wikipedia's values. They believe in the concept of Vested Contributors. They believe in valuing length of service and social standing over content of character. They believe in prioritising content over behaviour. They reject any and all initiatives of the so called Social Justice Warriors to improve the Wikipedia environment, ascribing more to the principle of survival of the fittest - he who can stand it, can edit it. He being the operative word.

For the enablers it is about their clear belief that Wikipedia should be a place where bad people doing bad things should be able to triumph over good people doing good things. Part of their strategy of course being to paint bad as good, and hope good people are sufficiently scared, demoralized or otherwise unable to challenge their evil narrative.

Arbitrators already have the policies which help them decide who is a bad person doing a bad thing, and vice versa. And they of all people, are trusted by the good people to not to be scared, demoralized or otherwise fail to report for the necessary duty of tacklng the people with evil intent.

The enablers have been asking for a good kicking for a very long time. Given an inch, they have taken a mile, every single time. The time for retreat is over. They probably relish the fight, emboldened by past victories. The time to smack them round the back of the head with a cricket bat, stomp their faces into the dirt, and piss on their lifeless bodies, is now. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

If good cannot triumph over evil in the Wikipedia community, then we who believe the world is better of with Wikipedia being smashed to pieces, will be proven right spectacularly. And so we will keep hitting it with a bat, until it dies.

HTD.

The problem with all that guys die niet als een ander zijn is they constante reincarnate. They get in trouble, a new sock is made in no time and welcomed by there formal mates and they get the same old status of the formal user back. They are in no time a sysop again, they get there old power back and so on.

Ymens is such a typical reincarnation. He came up out of noting, started to dump copy past stuf about musicians and bands, had a extreem high status and was by Wikimedia witch and WIR Dannielle in no time intergrated in the Caribbean project with his bot. He was also a candidate for arbcom but Woudloper advised him not to do so, and then came DrNatuur12 in for the broodnodige dosis Drmies.

Well, I still have to admit the result overtrof elk verwachting, exceed expectation in any way. Drmies is still a exceptional troll together with De Kolonel. A atomic bomb had been less destructive on the chapter on De Mariaplaats. It was a total crash landing of de Trollopedia as predicted here by me. Even MoiraMoira flew trough the wiki air.

And Ymnes? Ach, it is all theory of course, but I think was knocked out by "Iron Black Jan" because of to loud speaking and gripping a French wiki chick by her arm. Gay or not, hands of of Wiki chicks! And I am wonder when and if already Vig has come over. But I have my suspicions like anyone. That humor kwek, kwek kwek.

It isn't an accident that the two single biggest historical sources of persistent disruption to en.wiki by nominally good faith editors, namely Eric Corbett and BetaCommand, both eventually decided that rather than just leave because they were so obviously not compatible with the community, they instead rather ridiculously tried to reincarnate as socks, deluded as they were into thinking the problem was not them, it was their supposed undeserving reputation. And surprise surprise, both were caught because their personalities were still obvious, their problems still manifest, even when posting as entirely different people. For similar reasons undoubtedly, both have also undergone official renames in their wiki careers. Not an accident either that in both cases, the pieces of shit were incredibly reluctant to even admit what they had done even after being caught, and indeed Eric has never admitted it outright, he has simply made a joke of it. The problem is the dubious moral character of the Administration, since in both these cases, Administrators were complicit in the deception, believing they were empowered to help these people break golden rules, for the greater good.

CrowsNest wrote:Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Lolwut?

Statement by Ched
Hmmmm ... let's see. You've got 4 ex-arbs saying decline, and 0 that I see saying to accept. You might want to let that sink in a bit. — Ched : ? — 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I suppose that deductive reasoning and logical consequence aren't in everyone's wheelhouse. More's the pity. — Ched (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Deductive reasoning, you say?

Premise : On Wikipedia, sanctions are used to modify a user's disruptive behaviour back to acceptable norms

Premise : Eric Corbett has stated he has no intention of abiding by his restrictions

Premise : Eric Corbett has stated enforcement of his sanctions has no effect on his behavior

Premise : Eric Corbett's actions match his words, both recently and historically

Conclusion : Those wishing to retain the services of Eric Corbett as an editor at any cost, would have to be willing to deliberately undermine the purpose of the ArbCom sanctions. This could include former Arbitrators declining a perfectly valid case request designed to revisit failing sanctions, with possibly fraudulent reasoning, such as this claim the request is incoherent (Iridescent), would be premature and a waste of time (Cas Liber), and whatever the fuck else (Drmies and Brad).

Standard idiocracy. As simple as: make up any argument to support the aim - no sanctions for abusive established users -, no matter how ridiculous, flawed, incivil, ad hominem the argument is. Flood (aka. bludgeon) the discussion with these nonsense comments. If somebody disagrees, tell them the community already agreed, if necessary bully them with threats of blocking for disruption.

One would think that additional sysops would be appointed parties at this time.

Well, disappointingly, it looks like the case is going to be declined, and for a very surprising reason. You can usually rely on Mkdw to talk sense, it is usually Opabina who would say something as utterly stupid (and against their own Arb policy) as to decline because, while they see a case here, the filer didn't properly state it. And obviously, the purpose of statements is not to divine a consensus over whether to accept or not, that's just beyond dumb. Infact, this comment is so stupid, it is almost as if his account has been compromised, and by Opabina.

The only issue I could see the Arbitration Committee having a role in would be to review the current restrictions and sanctions against Eric Corbett to determine if they are sustainable and proving effective. Based upon Eric Corbett's block log and the statements provided here, the answer seems to be no, but for very different reasons. These comments range from Eric Corbett's conduct and willingness to repeatedly violate his restrictions and sanctions all the way to other editors taking advantage of the situation to unfairly provoke Eric Corbett. I largely expect the truth to run both sides, but a fact finding investigation could bring clarity in how to remedy this situation going forward.

The current case request seemingly calls for a broad review of Eric Corbett's conduct. While cases may be accepted with a different or expanded scope different from what is requested by the first filing party, I am a decline based upon the current case request and that I am not seeing enough of a consensus from the community as to what exactly they would like the Arbitration Committee to hold a case on. Mkdw talk 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Gaslighted wrote:Standard idiocracy. As simple as: make up any argument to support the aim - no sanctions for abusive established users -, no matter how ridiculous, flawed, incivil, ad hominem the argument is. Flood (aka. bludgeon) the discussion with these nonsense comments. If somebody disagrees, tell them the community already agreed, if necessary bully them with threats of blocking for disruption.

For sure. If flooding a debate with absolute bullshit that flies in the face of policy wasn't regularly successful, Wikipedia might have actually succeeded in its aims by now, instead of being just a very good example of how unevolved humans really are, at least the ones with enough spare time in their lives to become Wikipedians.