Eric Corbett

[CrowsNest]

Hallelujah! He lives!

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.

There would have to be so many changes here for me even to consider the possibility of returning, but it's obvious that Wikipedia ''can't'' change, and just as obvious that I ''won't'' change. So we much each go our separate ways.

Yeah, come on Eric. None of that was news insofar as what you believe, it's been the case for years. Tell us what really happened.

If you aren't dying, then the only conclusion is that it took you literally years to realise your act of sticking around just to piss others off, a fly in the ointment, was all rather pointless. They didn't care, and you were just wasting your own time. It certainly fits the pattern of your decline. Like a long, slow deflation. All punched out.

It would be hilarious if that is the truth of it all. I told you it was your future long ago, but in your wisdom, you disagreed. People keep making that mistake. Sucks to be them. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

You should take that sad bastard Giano's advice and pop in now and again, just for the sight of a cock like Ritchie seizing your spotlight to illustrate what he's all about, as an active member of the Wikipedia Asshole Homogeny (a term coined after your good self, I believe?). People need to be reminded that birds of a feather flock together.

[CrowsNest]

I really don't feel comfortable in being given the blame credit for Gropecunt Lane, as most of the spade work was done by ParrotOfDoom, whom God Preserve. All I did was to tickle it a bit, in the nicest possible way of course. Our aim right from the start was simply to write an article containing the c-word that so many Americans claim to find so offensive in a way that they couldn't object to. Nothing more noble than that. Eric Corbett 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Up until he said this, they were all praising him for his dedication to the cause of writing an encyclopedia.....

Do not stop editing Eric. Gropecunt lane is a masterpiece, which inspired me too look for other examples. There are others unrecorded out there. You provided a superb article which illuminated an almost unrecorded aspect of social history. Irondome (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the foundation could hire an open-topped bus so we could visit all the now famous places mentioned in your seminal Gropecunt Lane masterpiece. I am however serious when I use the word 'seminal' as it is the only article one can use when training undergraduates to form a FA- certainly more valuable initially than the MOS. ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The cat seems to have got their tongue, and others have desperately changed the subject, now he has revealed he didn't do much of the work (if any of the real 'content editor' work they do belove), and his motives were entirely selfish. This revelation of course comes as no surprise to those of us who know what a massive cunt and total fraud the myth of Eric Corbett their great content writer is and always has been.

Those poor fools. They need better role models. All they have now is Ritchie still trying to co-opt Eric's page to rail against Trump.

It's worth noting the article on Scunthorpe, a town of 80,000, with page views of 260 a day, is still not even a Good Article, much less a Featured one. I'm quite sure these painfully cool people don't give a fuck about that. They write what they want to write, for their own needs, because they're all selfish cunts. Philip Cross is editing it, but only because he's been banned from doing what he really wants to do.

That's the Wikipedia model.

So many Americans just didn't believe me when I said that the c-word is used quite commonly over here, and most often against men, not women, so it's in no way a sexualised insult. Anyway, I wish you luck in ploughing (or should that be plowing?) your lonely furrow (or should that be furrough?) here in the best of all possible worlds. Eric Corbett 19:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ploughing the furrow. Get it? GET IT?

So sad.

Not as sad as the fact it really wasn't "so many", and they probably weren't all American, and the pertinent point was that it was said as a gross insult, with intent, for which he neither apologised for or retracted. How come he is honest now, when it comes to the truth of his article contributions to Wikipedia, but still lies to the very end when it comes to accurately recalling the history of his troubles with his peers? Oh that's right, it's because he's a massive cunt.

I'm having lots of fun, and being much more productive to boot without having to waste time time dealing with the pond life so prevalent here. Eric Corbett 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

So close. What an opportunity missed. Still, Eric never was a high road type of guy. He regularly claimed to be, and I'm guessing the real pond life, the Irondomes and Clem Rutters, don't remember that. They don't remember much at all about dear old Eric, do they?

Still, if Wikipedians didn't have such selective, or just plain poor, memories, well, Eric would have been banned before he ever really got to become a legend.

[CrowsNest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =853561865

Don't eat from the poisoned tree Eric!

[CrowsNest]

False alarm. Turns out it was just a test edit so he could confirm his new account on Wikipediocracy was really him. He lasted all of three posts before spitting his dummy. Classic Eric.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=Eric+Corbett&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

I am left wondering, is Eric shallow enough to (re)join Wikipediocracy just because it was so recently condemned by Kupdung?

Wikipediocracy is a notorious Wkipedia hate site. In my humble opinion whether in good faith or bad, editors who claim to do good service on Wikipdia have no business even posting there - as I said, just my opinion; what we do here is build is an encyclopedia, not script a cheap soap. The best thing to do is ignore and deny that site's existence and it should not be evoked one way or the other in an RfA.

He said it in an out of the way place, but not so out of the way (a recent RfA) it would be missed by someone regularly checking up on Wikipedia. Indeed, if Eric has yet another socky-sock on the go, well, that is surely the first place he's want to really stretch its legs, no? Having been restricted all that time.....

Would be hilarious if his test edit to Wikipedia to ensure he could post three miserable times on Wikipediocracy, in turn meant he simply made several Wikipedians lives miserable from now on, or should I say yet again, as he gets drawn back onto the teat.

A good HTD strategy, sure, but not really very fitting with zoloft's good neighbours / willing partners policy.

[CrowsNest]

Pretty much the only rule that I ever bumped up against was WP:CIV

"Bumped up against"? You drove a truck over it, dropped your pants and shit on it.

A pretty significant rule you also ratfucked was WP:SOCK. Nobody ever looked at that rule the same way again after you. Now it's considered de rigour. You're not anybody on Wikipedia now until you've pulled the whole ooops sorry not sorry secret ArbCom deal manoeuvre after a stupid attempt to pretend you're something you're not goes tits up.

The rules you merely bumped up against were pretty much anything covered by WP:OWN and WP:MOS. Minor by your standards, but still pretty much enough to get anyone else banned if done with your level of persistence and arrogance.

I'm thinking you also broke a whole bunch of content related rules, as a by-product of your ownership of articles. There'll be shit out there that to this day is still incomplete, misleading or otherwise wrong, because of you routinely thinking you're God's gift to the fine art of building the world's largest trash bin. Your only qualification for that being how long you'd stunk out the place, an unwelcome reminder of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system of self-governance.

In fact, it's also remarkable now much shit falls under WP:CIV that you did that people probably don't even remember when recalling the good old days. Never admitting a mistake and never apologising, even when caught bang to rights, being two pretty fucking obvious examples.

It would be easier to list all the rules you didn't break.

This shit is boring. I preferred it when you were presumed dead. The dead don't need to be corrected.

[AndrewForson]

It is interesting that Corbett's defenders on Wikipedia used to argue that nobody had ever left the encyclopaedia because of him, and so his atrocious behaviour was ultimately not harmful to the project. Well, obviously people who have left are not going to come back and contradict them ... Perhaps Wikipediocracy, as a critical site, would like to devote some effort to nailing that lie -- for lie it is.

[Graaf Statler]

It should be very impolite to talk about Eric Corbett, Ming and others here, because I am in a discussion on WO with them at the moment.
But in general I am wondering about the fascination for Everipedia, not only by them. It is a startup, nobody has earned money till now, there is no inflation of the crypto money, what do they fear? It is just start up, there are many other wiki products, Wikipedia is in many ways a original Ponzipedia, where is it about? Or do they have to fear something....

And to be clear, I have no Tokens, crypto money in general, are not active there at the moment, so I am not involved.

[AndrewForson]

But in general I am wondering about the fascination for Everipedia [...]

Me too. It seems to be similar to Wikipedia only worse in every respect.

[Graaf Statler]

Well, we are a bit out of topic, but it has absolute a few interesting aspects. You don't have the tremendous bureaucratie, the project is uninteresting for good for nothing wiki job hunters, and the software is absolute more attractive. And there is a possibility to make a new start form the sketch fror total crap wiki's like the Dutch. Take the good parts, dump the tremendous shit, and it is massive clean up. A sterfhuis construction in Dutch, a deadsmans house. And it is nice it is a kind of facebook in the same time, so you don't have that you are only someone if you have a article on Wiki.

But at the moment the energy is complete leaking by me, I had a terrible heart attack not long ago and need ll my energy to recover now.

[AndrewForson]

Graaf, you seem to be making the same mistake, or at least looking at it from the same point of view, as many people on this and other sites, namely to focus in on what sort of experience a project gives to the contributors. This is clearly not a trivial matter, but is a means to an end, namely of writing an encyclopaedia , a compendium of human knowledge which is useable, reasonably accurate, up-to-date and reliable. Wikipedia does not achieve this, and cannot do so. It's failure is evidenced by the fact that with thousands of so-called editors it cannot cope with a backlog of a million unsourced or inadequately sourced pages -- pages that break its own clear rules -- thousands of which are about living people who may be suffering direct harm as a result. Everipedia incorporates this mass and adds to it with quite ludicrously weak criteria for inclusion as to be quite laughable, so it faces all the disadvantages of Wikipedia, adds to them, and has no model for correcting them other than the vague notion that by paying contributors in some unknown cryptocoin it may one day attract a lot of them. So what? Wikipedia has a lot of contrbutors and is incapable of producing an encyclopaedia. Everipedia is the same, only worse.

To get back to the issue at hand, as you so rightly remind us, of Eric Corbett. A minor player in the MMORPG who has gained a lot of brownie points by writing stuff, and uses those points to be unpleasant to other players, for reasons that elude me. If this were a serious attempt to write a work of scholarship he would have been fired years ago. But it isn't: it's an addictive on-line game, by design, and he is one of its features. Everipedia will turn out to be the same. It's designed in the same way, and attracts the same people, as we can see on this and other threads. Why would it be any different?