Eric Corbett

[CrowsNest]

It is quite fitting that the reincarnated Eric Corbett's 100th post to Wikipediocracy is to snipe at a perceived enemy.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 84#p223684

Not too hard to figure out what's going on in his brain. Sense a threat, attack. The nasty little ferret.

If you're gonna pick people up on this sort of thing, at least try to make it appear like you are consistent. In other words, pull up everybody who does it (and take the inevitable ban for being an annoying ass with good grace), or nobody. Not just the people who have criticised you.

[CrowsNest]

Writing and maintaining encyclopedic content is not usually done by administrators.

Is that backed by evidence, or just pulled out of your ass?

And one way or another, is it not the case every single thing a Wikipedia Administrator does with their Administrator hat on, if doing their actual duty, is aimed at "maintaining" the "encyclopedic content"? Except maybe, protecting children from predators and the like. Y'know, the silly irrelevant stuff.

Not hard to figure out why Eric is so hated, is it? And not just by Wikipedia Administrators, but by everybody who doesn't think in the same simplistic terms he does. Poor little Eric. So persecuted.

[AndrewForson]

Eric will be an interesting test case for the WO ideology. He doesn't have the hit points on WO that he so assiduously built up on WP, so he should receive a pretty fair amount of scorn and derision. If he doesn't, it's a sign that either WO is run by bullies who happen to agree with Eric, or that WO has imbibed enough of the WP Kool-Aid to believe that Eric must not be criticised on WO because of his valuable contributions on WP.

[CrowsNest]

There's plenty on that will defend him, even from a position of ignorance, even when shown to be talking utter shite, largely because it is a haven for shitbag Wikipedians. The staff does nothing about this shitbaggery, and the reasons are ever changing.

Those who wouldn't naturally support Eric, they don't pull him up on even obvious stuff, for a few simple reasons....

1. They're too thick to spot it
2. They're too lazy to do it
3. They don't want the hassle of dealing with one of his tantrums (him following Dysklver just to snipe, is what happens when you criticse Eric in a venue he can respond in)

[Dysklyver]

To be fair Eric is a sneaky bastard and he isn't entirely showing his hand yet, so maybe he realises he doesn't yet have the credibility to go all out, but feels it necessary to get involved and rank up his POV.

And maybe he realises that as long as he doesn't directly go for any of the big names he will be fine.

Or maybe he is a total twat and just can't help it.

[CrowsNest]

He's not new to that board, remember he has posted before as Malleus, and probably before that. He's a known quantity to pretty much everyone there except you, Graaf and Bedson I would imagine.

Eric will go after anyone, high born or low. Like I said, he has principles, of sorts. His Code. He won't much care if he is banned from there if he gets to take you down or cause a riot. Don't even rule out a mega sulk. They likely want him more than he wants them, simply because he is likely to draw a crowd. It's not like he raises the bar intellectually, right?

He's really best viewed as a lone wolf. Supporters are more correctly viewed as admirers and occasional assistants, not comrades.

Even when he was part of a proper gang on Wikipedia, he was more their spirit guide than their leader. You paid your dues, you offered your loyalty, you cleaned his house, and you did not ask for anything in return. And then, maybe you start to find you have certain new friends, friend with badges, or baseball bats, or both, and other people start to cross the street to avoid you, abandoning their shopping in the street if need be. Maybe he even does you a little favour now and then, give you a hand fixing your car, holding that heavy wrench for two seconds, because he's just nice like that. That kind of boss.

And when he starts to look a little senile, starts to act erratically, starts to do things that bring the wrong kind of attention, or just generally wanders off into the woods, then you stop paying him visits and pretend like he never existed. It was a lonely time for him on Wikipedia, toward the end. Even so, had that cancer rumour been true, the list of condolence messages would have been huge, with everyone who is anyone who has ever broken a trash can on Wikipedia wanting to sign it, while others hung around outside, taking pictures of who was coming and going. That kind of boss.

[CrowsNest]

Trashing Jimmy Wales, as usual.

Can't see him being too bothered about any of the investors losing all their money.

This is the same nasty little ferret who so recently chided someone for speculating on the motives of Ritchie, and over a far more trivial issue than feeling no guilt for losing investors lots of money. Ritchie of course, is a friend and one time protector of the little ferret, while Wales is an adversary, who once tried to skin him. Animal brain stuff this.

Eric has never been too good at maths, but even for him, not spotting that losing £7,000,000 in shares while earning at most £250,000 a year for 4 and a half years, does not equate to doing "pretty well out of it". My maths tells me that is a loss of £5,875,000, which is a bad day at the office in anyone's book, even for a man who claims to not really be in it for the money but the good feels. It doesn't even look good value for money if his aim was merely self-promotion, not even for maintaining the Davos globe trotter level of status.

Ferrets should stick to ferret stuff. Eating, shagging, being skinned for coats, that sort of thing. Leave the moral judgements to others.

In other news, the little ferret is hoping Kupdung's last issue of the SignPost will ruffle a few feathers, while at the same time trashing Kupdung of course. Work that out if you can.

Ferrets are not known for their journalistic skills, so it seems almost cruel to point out that if this little ferret thinks the SignPost is the right outlet for ruffling feathers, surely his little ferret ass could be writing pieces for it? He can hardly claim they would reject his sort of scat, or that he would be silenced by the Dark Forces of the Cabal if he tried to get his message out there, because we have lots of evidence now that the Wikipedians are really keen on the SignPost being truly independent, unafraid to expose the hidden underbelly of the beast. Hey, isn't there a website somewhere the claims this is their mission too? Must have been a figment if my imagination....

Truth is, Eric was never the kind of ferret who, in not liking the way the bedding in his cage is laid out, or finds the lack of drain pipes and live mice to be most unsatisfactory, would fill out the right complaint forms and be all the change he could be. He's a ferret. No essays, RfCs, policy proposals for him. Dirty protests and biting the hand that feeds was always more his style. I may even be maligning the good name of ferrets with that analogy! He did once stop writing articles on Mondays. Nobody gave a shit. As normal people would have predicted.

Stop trying to fool people into thinking you are something you are not, Eric. Embrace your inner ferret. That was always when you looked your best. Shiny coat, sharp teeth, zero morals and absolutely no sense of civic responsibility. Now you just look like a piss-stained draught excluder. About as useful too.

[CrowsNest]

Eric, mansplaining? Well. I. Never.

Of course I was the editor who thinks a stub should have 20 citations, the majority from really good sources.

Why 20? Why not 15? And wouldn't it be better to apply some kind of weighting system instead of an arbitrarily chosen number? Maybe a weighting of x5 for an academic source such as Oxford University Press for instance?

.....this question makes me feel defensive as well as annoyed......I don’t know what the point is here. For you or for me. So I’ll stop now.

Now, remember Eric, be nice!

[Dysklyver]

Eric has never been too good at maths, but even for him, not spotting that losing £7,000,000 in shares while earning at most £250,000 a year for 4 and a half years, does not equate to doing "pretty well out of it". My maths tells me that is a loss of £5,875,000, which is a bad day at the office in anyone's book, even for a man who claims to not really be in it for the money but the good feels. It doesn't even look good value for money if his aim was merely self-promotion, not even for maintaining the Davos globe trotter level of status.

Yes it was a massive loss for poor old Jimbo, I dont for a second think he expected it to fail dismally like it did.

[AndrewForson]

Did he actually pay for those shares, or was he given them to get him on board and "incentivise" him?