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 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:23 pm

How ridiculous would that ArbCom case have been?

Eric's enablers are given cast iron proof he has committed the worst sin any Wikipedian can commit that isn't actually illegal, the act of thumbing your nose at the very idea of sanctions by just creating another account to get around them, and they just sit back and ask, ah, but where's the disruption?

I would have enjoyed the level of absurdity in such a case, but I fear Eric's enablers would have been successful, with Opabina's help, in arguing Eric was the real victim.

Not even Eric wanted to be cleared in such a case, that much is clear. He had no more appetite for being used as a political football. His enablers however, clearly wanted him to be kicked all over for a few more rounds yet.

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 Sep 02, 2019 7:00 pm

How fitting that Giano wants Eric's user page preserved in aspic, as if he had actually died (literally referring to it as an "execution".)

After all, it wouldn't be Eric if his final act on Wikipedia wasn't to have his enablers piss on the graves of the Wikipedia editors who have actually died, and are honoured in this way.

Too special for a sock-puppetry tag or ArbCom block notice. Just as Queen Bishonen decrees for all her subjects, their crimes always absolved instantly, dead or not, for loyal service to the Crown. I wonder, does Giano even realize that latterly, Eric was out of favour with her Majesty?

These fucking people. Eric might have been left alone in his earlier obviously fake retirement, if they weren't so eager to rub it in people's faces.

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 Sep 02, 2019 7:30 pm

This is a disappointingly drama free end to Eric's time on Wikipedia. He would have been hoping and praying to much more than this. Like, ten times more.

Most of his supporters can't even be bothered to comment, just the usual desperate whining and insults from the tiny few hard core enablers, pretty much the entire Manchester drinking crew, and a couple of corrupt Administrators who lost their reputations years ago. You could hardly believe this is the same user that caused 70+ people to have strong opinions on Eric's value/future in the Case request.

It must piss them off no end that nobody even seems bothered about arguing over tagging his user page, they're just happy their long nightmare is over. Such a sad end.

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 Sep 02, 2019 8:23 pm

The Eric Corbett Problem in a nutshell.......
Truly a sad day for the project. Great writers throughout history now weep on this day. — Ched (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
To these talentless freaks, he truly did resemble genius.

His mistakes alone, are there for all to see, in record. Alas, they could not see.

With the infallibility of a God, his mistakes were never explained, never corrected, because he either didn't accept he was wrong, or couldn't face admitting it.

All documented.

Like showing the flaws of a man, to monkeys.

HTD.

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 Sep 02, 2019 8:30 pm

George Ponderevo was a clean start until it was revealed. Then he quickly went back to his own account. That said, I'm not here to debate and won't. I believe, strongly, it was unwise of the committee to refuse to examine the events that elicited the RfAr. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ha!

This will be news to all those who still recall the official version, that poor old George was just Eric's unfortunate room-mate. If Eric has ever admitted this was a lie, I've never seen it.

Still, she doesn't want to debate, so that's that.

No, it is not.
Last edited by CrowsNest on Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 Sep 02, 2019 8:46 pm

Fantasy land bullshit, it really is......
Without condoning his short temper, would it really stick in your throat to admit that he is a very serious loss to Wikipedia’s content. Giano (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The little bastard hadn't created an article for eighteen months, so the loss to Wikipedia can't be all that, or we would have heard something more than the usual whining from the usual shitlords.

That's what won't ever get admitted by his enablers. Eric never was indispensable, never was as vital as they claimed. Nobody is.

Only 0.1% of Wikipedia content has reached Featured status. This figure has been static for as long as I can remember, so for all his efforts both writing and reviewing, it appears his personal contribution didn't amount to more than the hair on a flea's nutsack, in the grand scheme of things.

What would have helped, is if Wikipedia could have shed its reputation of being a toxic shithole and become a truly mass-participation project, rather than a place where you could literally be hounded out of Featured Article work just by disagreeing with Eric, because he really couldn't handle being wrong, and had to rip your very face off to assert his status.

In that respect, in his singular achievement of being so horrifically effective as to become a byword for Wikipedia's inability to do a simple thing like ensure everyone is treated with basic human dignity, to have the very sickness named after him by the powers that be, the Eric Corbett Problem, he was truly a man of great contribution.

Now we're getting somewhere. Now this is looking like a true Eric Corbett pity party.

I hope it burns, you absolute bunch of cunts.

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by JuiceBeetle » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:47 pm

We sincerely apologise for the 18 minute delay and any distress it may have caused to very attentive talk page stalkers. – Joe (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a hilariously elegant "try to act like a grown up" message :lol:

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 Sep 02, 2019 8:52 pm

:roll:
Oh for Heaven’s sake! I doubt the Arbcom had anything really to do with this Draconian action, far more likely the Arbcom is itself just a puppet passing on an order from the dreaded “WMF,” that sinister collection of overpaid anonymities. Have we all forgotten so soon how they now lurk waiting to pounce like creatures from some second-rate, 19th century melodrama set in Whitechapel? If Eric has been commanding a huge army of seriously abusive socks then ban him, but trying to deny his valuable contribution is nothing short of demeaning to the project. Giano (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by JuiceBeetle » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:54 pm

CrowsNest wrote:The little bastard hadn't created an article for eighteen months, so the loss to Wikipedia can't be all that, or we would have heard something more than the usual whining from the usual shitlords.
That's what won't ever get admitted by his enablers. Eric never was indispensable, never was as vital as they claimed. Nobody is.

This editing with the sock won't be missed.
Obligatory good-bye message from one of the exclusionist admins: Wikipedia does not need you "essay"

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 Sep 03, 2019 12:40 am

At least Eric can comfort himself that he will be one of the tiny minority of editors who get shitcanned, who is actually remembered long after he's gone.......
I didn't call anybody a cunt, so I think I'm well within the established boundaries for civil conduct.
@PeterTheFourth: civility is not about namecalling, per se., and you are, in fact, well outside established boundaries for civil conduct. Telling someone to Go pick a fight in traffic conveys imagery far worse than namecalling someone a "cunt," as far as I'm concerned.El_C 19:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do find such violent imagery to be worse than simple namecalling. Maybe it is a matter of locale, also with regards to "cunt" — the editor behind that being from the UK. El_C 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Groundhog day. Useless Administrators still finding contrived excuses for how one of the most offensive words in the English language, is somehow not instantly blockable under WP:CIV, when used as a direct insult. Unlike the absurd counter-example, it requires no such imagination to know what the utterer really means. And yes, as it always has a done, the essential meaning in that context is the same in Britain as it is elsewhere - to cause maximal offense. A likely prelude to actual violence, not imaginary violence. Well outside the bounds of anyone's idea of civil conduct, except the very weird world that is the Wikipedia community.

Eric really did screw them all up. And the hilarious thing of all, he knew exactly what he was doing, the little bastard. He was trying to eliminate WP:CIV completely, and seeing comments like the above, he basically achieved his goal, for all intents and purposes.

Post Reply