Eric Corbett

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Moderator: Abd

Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:36 pm

An infamous editor, perhaps the most infamous post 2010, certainly in the non-admin ranks. As Jake recently observed when the whiny little bitches of Wikipediocracy were trying to prevent news of his recent resurrection being documented, "Mr. Corbett is probably the most emblematic example of the notorious 'bad actor who writes good' type on Wikipedia".

Sadly Eric failed to die of whatever illness he had last year which massively curtailed his editing to a weird zombie-like gnome profile (not that any of his so called friends seemed to notice or care much). Now he's pretty much back to where he used to be, grinding out content and being an asshole to anyone who remotely disagrees with him on any subject, regardless of whether he is ultimately right or not.

His ArbCom restriction placed in December 2014 is still in effect, theoretically preventing him, and him specifically on pain of blocking, from insulting or belittling others. As ever, the Wikipedians, particularly those in positions of authority, continue to pretend like that special sanction doesn't exist, and the ordinary editors who continue post-resurrection to be victims of Eric's vile nature still seem to be either gripped with fear or so totally disillusioned to even try to have it enforced.

Eric's such a hypocrite, he's always a good source of a laugh. Ten days ago he posted a self-pitying notice bemoaning the "atmosphere of distrust here on Wikipedia" simply because he was denied the Template Editor user right. This is the same guy who, two months previously, flat out accused another editor of following him around. They weren't, Eric simply didn't understand that one of Wikipedia's features is to give topic defined New Page listings to related Portals. Unsurprisingly, his Template Editor user right request revealed he lacked the technological understanding as to why it exists. But of course, it's all a conspiracy against poor little Eric, and his defenders are outraged. Stupid fucker(s).

If you want to know what a true Wikipedian looks like, one of the sort of editors who reflexively encourage Eric in his never-ending victim complex, go check out how Cas Liber did anything and everything except admit the truth about Eric on Wikipediocracy. It is a sad reflection of the state of that so called critic site that very few people could be bothered to pull him up on his obvious bullshit and stand up for the truth. And yet again Zoloft tried to protect Cas, as one of his cowardly flock, by proposing to lock the thread.

It will be a sign Wikipedia is properly changing, if or when Eric Corbett is told in no uncertain terms by the community or their esteemed representatives in high office, to kindly fuck off. Since it is well established by now that he isn't going to change, as he proudly admits at any opportunity. In other words, Wikipedia is never going to change - and if you can't handle being made to inhabit the same space as people like Eric because you're the sort of soft shite who won't accept being shown total contempt for no real reason, it's you who needs to leave.

Hopefully, karma will do the work that the cowardly Wikipedia administrators have failed to do all these years - Eric has revealed he is not going to get a prostate screening (necessary for a man of his years), because he is pissed the doctors supposedly gave him diabetes by proscribing him a drug for stomach acid. And he is convinced he can beat it by making no lifestyle changes whatsoever. Stupid fucker.

But that gives a window into the mind of this arrogant prick - he already believes he's the smartest guy on Wikipedia (easily disproven such as in a hilarious recent example where he didn't know what gross margin was, even after being told), so why not believe you're smarter than medical science? Stomach acid is hardly a surprise either, nobody that hateful and that incapable or divorcing themselves from a hobby they clearly dislike and are only really doing out of spite, could possibly have avoided giving themselves an ulcer.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:42 pm

A classic example of how Eric operates.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... net_Boyman

Unbelievably, he often professes to have no idea why people think he's an asshole.

If you opened a booth at your local fair, "Punch Eric Corbett in the Face" with a price of $10 a hit, you'd be able to retire after just one day.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:51 pm

Look at the dumb prick edit warring with a bot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838163435

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838482251

Not to worry, he has defeated the dastardly technology using his own template......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838495409

How typical. Whether it is expectations of behaviour or issues of style, he just always has to be the awkward prick everyone else has to work around.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:22 pm

An incident remarkably similar to the gross margin debacle I mentioned in the first post......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =833470572

......all resolved eventually on the talk page, in spite of Eric, who of course simply tried to provoke the other party with his usual insults and accusations of ignorance (on his own talk page as well), then ridiculously claimed co-credit for the eventual resolution.

In both cases, perhaps because he simply can't handle being wrong, he just pretends like he wasn't talking absolute shite, wasn't edit warring to reinsert shite, and didn't repeatedly try to defend it and cast everyone else as the idiots in the room.

It takes a very special kind of person to defend this piece of shit, let alone laud him as one of the very best editors Wikipedia has. Soulless freaks who lack any sense of morality. The worst of worst, even by the low standards of the so-called Wikipedia community.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby AndrewForson » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:26 pm

Eric's antisocial language has had one unintended consequence that adds to the gaiety of nations. Since for some reason there's a vociferous claque concerned to promote Eric as a man of the people, who tells it like it is, and should be forgiven nayway because of his sterling contributions, they found it necessary to promote the notion that the word "cunt" in Eric's "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one" is, in British English, a friendly term of endearment. Of course that assertion is a lie: it is, in both American and British, a grossly offensive word, the use of which is almost certain to cause offence in almost every context (and certainly was intended to do so by Eric in that quote). This falsehood inspired Caroline Sinders, working on harassment for the WMF, to tell a machine learning conference that this purely fictional discrepancy was a reason for "cunt" being one of her favourite words, as reported by Genderdesk. Caroline no longer works for the WMF. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:57 am

Maybe not a coincidence, but that infamous quote was referenced (in a very misleading way, as if it were a ping, not a diff included as context) in the ongoing RfA for GreenMeansGo, by Chris Troutman.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838639958

Needless to say, Eric didn't like it (from the RfA talk page)........
I take exception to Q8
@Chris troutman: I take very strong exception to the general tone displayed by Chris Troutman in question 8. I did not pluck the word adversarial out of the ether, it was used by the nominator himself during the GA review in question. And to include a completely irrelevant link to a comment I made about civility four years ago can only one have purpose, to impugn my credibility as an editor fit to offer an opinion on anything. As many will know, I am unable to take part in any further discussion in this thread, which offers the perfect excuse to ignore my concerns, which is undoubtedly what will happen. Eric Corbett 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
My bolding, obviously.

This is frankly hilarious. He cannot seriously be upset that his quite deliberate use of the most grossly offensive language just to convey his disagreement with the civility policy, is being used to show that his praise four years later for someone who dealt with an "unnecessarily adversarial GA review" well, likely doesn't come from someone whose views on civility suggest they don't like unnecessarily adversarial conduct and wish to see it eliminated on Wikipedia.

There are only two conclusions to be made - either his views on civility have changed and he now embraces WP:CIV, or he still believes that his dropping of the c-bomb in that context was not unnecessarily adversarial, but wholly justifiable. It is pretty obvious which of those is true.

It is his truth, so if he still believes it, he should own it, not try and deny who he really is, much less hypocritically flag it up in some hope an admin is going to remove it from view. Hilariously, nobody has yet, but I suspect someone will soon, most likely that infamous defender of shitbags and their rights to have their reputations managed, Ritchie.

It's also pretty funny to see him whining about his 1 comment on RfA's restriction. If he simply asked, it would be lifted, given the time that has passed and his willingness to comply with it. There will be at least one admin (Ritchie!) out there who will happily overlook the fact it shouldn't be lifted unless or until he explicitly acknowledges why it was placed and why it is no longer be needed. Which is, or course, why he doesn't ask.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby sashi » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:28 am

CrowsNest wrote: RfA for GreenMeansGo


power~enwiki (π, ν) wrote:Support: It's a mop, and it's about time this user started doing more mopping :)



yes, less blood, more mopping... :lol:
User avatar
sashi
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby AndrewForson » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:40 am

Any views on why Eric should be so popular with such an influential bunch of people? Presumably he's a "useful idiot", but useful to whom, and for what?
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:15 am

I'm not following. Which influential people? He has support among several prominent admins and editors for reasons no more complex than, as a sort of playground bully, he does what they're too scared to do - show his open contempt for the very idea civility should be a part of Wikipedia. They keep their discontent with it being an expectation hidden behind snide comments and undermining actions, leaving open rebellion to Eric, as a fucked up kind of champion for their cause. That is his use to them, to flaunt the fact that if you have enough power and friends, you can basically ignore it, leading others to simply not bother to either follow it, let alone enforce it.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 03, 2018 2:37 am

There's nothing to be gained by continually exposing yourself to the negative comments of others, along with the very real danger that it will begin to get to you, if it hasn't already. Eric Corbett 14:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
:lol:

The trials and tribulations of the playground bully. Doesn't it make your heart bleed?

Knock it off Eric, you're not the victim of anything except your own stubbornness, this move into begging for sympathy really does ruin your previously well established character profile.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests