Eric Corbett

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:21 pm

Fine work by Eric there......
I understand that you found it to be "laddish", but I don't agree that makes it so. Eric Corbett 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: If you think yourself better placed than me to evaluate its chilling effect on women, that's fine. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

What conceit is it that leads you to believe that you speak for all women? Or even for most women? Eric Corbett 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that a woman is probably better placed to speak about how women feel about issues affecting women than a man would be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Puzzled as to why Bishonen even got involved. As if anyone would believe her when she says she is offended by laddish culture. I'll happily take laddish over the venemous wagon circling behaviour that earned her a block from Jimmy Wales.

I'm certain I speak for all women when I say they would have found the latter incident far more off putting. There was nothing about it that gave you even a hint that Bishonen even is a woman, not on the terms she is defining the gender traits here anyway. If that isn't evidence of a laddish culture, I don't know what is.

There is such a thing as a laddette, and in the worst possible way, Bishonen is one. She can stab you for disrespecting her tribe just as good as any "lad" would. Speaking metaphorically of course. She certainly regularly has good bantz with the lads, she even leads it. LEGEND.

Always been weird now she doesn't know how she comes across to others, or doesn't care. Then again, neither does Eric. Perhaps a shared trait in the very worst Wikipedians?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:23 pm

I had totally missed that the above exchange was an obvious violation of his ArbCom topic ban from the gender gap, broadly construed.

Indefinitely prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
The edits in question seem to unambiguously violate the restriction, none of the usual wiggle room, not even the huge leeway frequently offered to precious little Eric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =868210866

Nobody will do anything about it of course, because ArbCom's authority has been hollowed out, largely by its current members, working in tandem with Eric's enablers.

But hey, it's ArbCom election time again. Your chance to vote for change. You can vote for a current Arbitrator, or a former Abitrator.

HOPE AND CHANGE!

I told you he screwed Wikipedia, did I not? Absolutely destroyed it, from the inside. Ironically, just like cancer. And he's not even happy at this extraordinary success. Miserable git.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:29 pm

Carrite wrote:A neophyte Wikipedia critic at another site has raised the prospect that the original question raised of The Divine Freddy B. was a technical violation of Eric's topic ban against discussions of gender at Wikipedia, broadly defined.

Which is bollocks, but controversy is grist for Arbcom's mill, so who knows...
Pay attention Timmy. The violation spotted is the discussion that occurred on the talk page, not his original question. No need for technicalities, or broadly construed, to see it. And he is not banned from discussing gender, but the gender disparity of Wikipedians. Him arguing over whether the non-targeted 'cultural' use of the c-word in Wikipedia discourse is laddish and off putting to women is a recognised branch of the whole study of why Wikipedia has so few women editors. Eric knows this, he is famous for his view.

Now, you could also argue that because the only reason Eric asked the question was because he saw Fred talking about the gender disparity of Wikipedians, it was a violation, but as you hinted at, I'm quite sure someone would argue it is not, on a technicality (probably arguing over what "process" means here).

The following may credit Eric with too much intelligence, but perhaps he asked the question to see if he could exploit that technicality, to create a bit of patented Eric brand divide and conquer? When nobody bit, he either forgot about it, or tried to violate it in a more obvious way on the talk page.

It is obviously relevant evidence in any case on Bauder, but because it could lead to Eric facing consequences for his actions, it won't be raised. They will make sure of it. And as we have seen before, if nobody adds Eric as a party, he can't be sanctioned for what is discovered during the case. Which is another fucked up aspect of Wikipedia governance that has its roots in Eric's efforts to destroy the place.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:50 pm

You've got to laugh at the clowns. So they sanction me, so what?
So you would not be able to edit?

You've made twenty odd edits since you said you were never going back.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:04 am

Real people shouldn't need to be reminded of that [there are real people on the other end of those usernames.]
I'll take a wild guess and assume this was an attempted jab at me.

So let me be clear Eric. I've always had it uppermost in my mind, that there is a real person behind your username. That is precisely why I do what I do, and you damn well better not forget it.

Anyway, so, you were saying.......oh, who are we kidding? As if Eric would confirm for me that we are to take this statement as meaning he treated his fellow editors as though they were real peoole, so I can go debunk it.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:32 pm

You make a good point about initiatives such as Women in Red as well, but anyone who appears to be critical of that in particular will soon find themselves pigeon holed as a misogynist; if you're anti the project then you're automatically anti-women.
God he talks some shite. It rather depends on the nature of the criticism, doesn't it? If you're claiming it shouldn't exist because there is no gender gap, or if there is, it has no detrimental effect, then reasonable people are going to conclude you are a misogynist. As they did, because that's what Eric did. If you criticise it because it is an ineffective or diversionary sop, then you probably wouldn't be criticised by people outside of Wikipedia. The participants themselves might see you as anti-women, but you have a choice, you can use your empathy and accept that is a natural human reaction to someone devaluing you as a person and take it with good grace and understanding, or you can react like a perpetual victim and claim it is all part of a feminazi conspiracy to silence your testicles. We know which path Eric prefers.

Thoughts and prayers for the real victim here please people. :roll:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:40 am

I'm very much anti the Women in Red project because I see it as simply a flag waving "Look, we're doing something" waste of time, money and effort which emboldens a load of second-rate editors to produce indefensible crap. Added to which, the output from the editathons and so on it organises is almost uniformly inept.
Translation: I hate it because they get money to write articles and encourage new editors to join, and NOBODY HAS EVER SHOWN ME ANY APPRECIATION. :cry:

Turn it in Eric, you sad fuck.

I don't even believe this is the reason you are against the project, since it implies you would be OK with a project that was a cost-effective means of recruiting and training women editors specifically to write decent biographies of women. Believing that to be a worthwhile cause would go against everything you have ever said on this subject. Not that you contradicting yourself when convenient to do so is anything new, as we all know.

You'd be all over that project like flies on shit, demanding the same perks, checking their work, making sure they know their ovaries don't merit them any special treatment, that they'll have to piss in the same gutters and eat from the same swill troughs as you fine upstanding citizens of the wiki. And if they don't like it they can fuck off back to the kitchen. 'If you don't want to be treated like a feminist, don't act like one', right? Well, you would if you weren't sadly topic banned from such things, because of all that misogyny you done did.

I appreciate being challenged by Gorilla Warfare puts you into a cold sweat, but you really should have figured out by now, she takes as much interest in you as I do, we're gonna keep you honest, ensure there is some consistency to Brand Ferret Piss. So you'd do well to keep your story straight. She's clearly back in the saddle after her hiatus from wikipolitics, ironically having concentrated on WiR instead, and repeatedly bursting Kumioko's balloon isn't going to keep her amused for long. She's soon gonna be fact checking the shit out of you, and we both know that's not something you enjoy. Positively allergic to it infact.

As always, your casual to the point of careless use of inflammatory language in this context, specifically "second rate editors", "indefensible crap" and "uniformly inept", is of course only going to further convince people that your issue is not with what is being achieved/produced, but who is doing it. Namely women who have not yet been acclimated to the Wikipedia culture, a big part of which is letting them know you are their superior.

If you think you claiming to be retired renders this criticism moot, then by all means, go seek that block you say you're not afraid of, just so we can reassure all future women editors that you're no longer a member of the club, that you're not going to come out of the woodwork and get all up in their business. Because we both know your topic ban won be enforced. It can't be. Any instrument designed to protect women on Wikipedia, is to be nullified. It would probably be one of your woman friends who ensures it is ignored, because of their renowned ability, much like yourself, to know what is best for them.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:22 pm

It appears the resurrection of Vigilant has scared off the ferret fucker once and for all (or rather, once again).

Hmmm.

Not sure how I feel about that. It is manifestly a public service, removing any possibility that he might be seen as a legitimate critic. Lord knows Jake wasn't about to find the integrity to do it.

Then again, I did so love torturing him.

An revoire, the man so toxic even cancer couldn't kill him. :lol:

His poor wife though. More of that around the house? No thanks. Glad that's not on me.

Still, there's another Corbett Original Myth we can lay to rest. No fucking way was he just sticking around on Wikipedia those last few years just to piss everybody off. Nobody who could do that would be afraid of the prospect of cohabiting a forum with Vigilant for any length of time.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Dec 02, 2018 12:00 pm

Nope. Yay!
I thought the decision was made by Jimmy Wales, and that the voting was only for his guidance in making that decision?
Surely someone who obsesses about Jimmy as much as the ferret fucker does, would keep themselves availed of his actual powers?
In December 2017, upon the conclusion of the 2017 Arbitration Committee Election, Wales confirmed that he no longer needs to appoint members of the Arbitration Committee and that the established community process is sufficient for their election.
It really is that fucking easy to make the ferret fucker look as dumb and crazy as his spirit guide Kumioko. Still, credit for posing it as a question, a rare acknowledgement that he may not actually be correct in assuming other people are wrong.

We know he is already safely protected by Uncle Jake from me, but is this subtle change in approach enough to spare him Vigilant's scrutiny? We shall see. Tuck that tail in Eric, lest it get stomped on.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Dec 02, 2018 12:05 pm

I stand corrected, he's getting feisty.
What's been happening to your recent postings? I'm afraid that the way you're headed will ultimately lead to this site being closed down, which I can only suppose is your aim.
Lame.

Better get yourself a lawyer Jake. JUST IN CASE. :roll:

Wouldn't that he awesome though? The scorpion and the fox.

Post Reply