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 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:59 pm

:lol:

Ah, the sweet taste of victory, always produces the bitter taste of defeat......
Oh FFS... Well done on ignoring the baiting and stupidity surrounding all this. ScottyWong baits someone, doesn't bother explaining his crass action here (and still Eric doesn't rise to the bait), a relative newbie files a clusterfuck of a case, but you decide to put a target on Eric's back? And this is despite a host of admins, includng former Arbs advising you not to? And you wonder why people get pissed off with you? FFS... - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Check the record, dumbass. Scotty didn't just fail to explain his decision, he told the community to BITE HIM. He went full Eric.

You pushed your luck too many times, you produced the conditions where the people playing by the rules just said, you know what, fuck these people and their obvious games.

It's a basic fact that the closest Eric ever came to genuine reflection and change, was when he was subject to an indefinite block. The system was on the verge of working, sort of, after years of obstruction, but you stupid bastards just got greedy.

Eric's enablers put the target in his back, nobody else is to blame. It's been there for a very long time. You should have taken the deal - 75% of the real Eric, but for twenty years, rather than 100% of the real Eric, for what, five years?

Wasn't worth it, was it?

You've always been a bunch of dumb fucks. Been hilarious watching you get to pull the same shit, year after year, hoping to forestall the inevitable.

Own your defeat. You deserve 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 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:17 am

If ArbCom are going to review now sanctions work, they could do worse than comment on what the transphobe Stanton McCandlish did. After being reported to AE, he got interaction banned from another editor for six months on 22 May 2019. He promptly put up a notice......
Due to on-wiki hounding, and "blame the victim" punishment for being harassed, I won't be actively participating or editing until 23 October 2019 (or sooner if the bogus sanction against me is lifted). I may respond briefly to important things if people e-mail me directly about them, but I have ping notifications turned off.
Yet another way to make a mockery of the system. Naturally, the Administration didn't react, by for example, simply making the ban an indefinite one (since the only point of time limited sanctions is the expectation the lessons needing learned will be learned in that time period).

Personally, I see no downsides to simply indef blocking anyone who makes one of these pathetic protest gestures. As long as nobody is actively causing disruption, currently Wikipedia just allows it, on some warped idea that it is venting, or protected speech, or worse, that it can be just ignored because it isn't doing any harm. It is of course neither, nor can it be ignored as harmless (for here I am using it to harm Wikipedia), since it is just another way the community at large shows it doesn't actually believe in the purpose of sanctions (behaviour modification). It shows in fact they are indeed meant to simply be punishments, to be endured, or in this asshole's case, be used to blackmail people into pushing for its removal. Sadly for him, you kinda need friends for that.

Imagine the power of such a protest in Eric's hands. It is a blessing that the ferret fucker probably sees this sort of thing as an appeal of sorts, so had never tried it. That is, of course, back when he wasn't simply just looking for ways he could use his sanctions to harm Wikipedia. Oops. WP:BEANS! :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 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:45 pm

Ten days since this request was filed.

It's been over 24 hours since they publicly stated an absolute majority exists and a scope has been agreed, which per policy means this should already be a case in the docket, so the three month wait for a decision can officially begin.

Autonomous self-governing Wikipedia running like clockwork, as usual.

Are they sure they don't want Trust and Safety just to send him an email. Two words will do.

:?:

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 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:35 pm

Day 11.

No activity to report. :ugeek:

--------

Although I did apparently miss this rather blatant attempt by an Administrator who doesn't want the case to happen, to either intimidate the filer or just generally further smear them in the shit that seems to be liberally applied to anyone who dares challenge the Corbett using the legally allowed means.

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

Not that Wikipedians have any rights to speak of, but as a public service I feel I should remind them of what little rights they do have in such circumstances.

If a Wikipedia Administrator approaches you with allegations couched as mere concerns in this fashion, particularly if they are asking you for details of a personal or private nature, you are entitled to refuse to answer any questions unless or until they make their concerns crystal clear. What policy are you alleged to have breached (in this case it looks to be WP:CANVASS), and what evidence have they for for it (in this case clearly none)?

Under no circumstances are you expected to account for things in the public forum of a Wikipedia talk page that cannot be appropriately put to you in such a public setting. That obviously includes explaining any statements made off wiki by accounts that you have not and don't want to connect to your Wikipedia user account.

If they do not pony up with the goods, preferably over private channels, simply politely remind them that the site operates on the principles of good faith and the belief that the practice of the entirely speculative public interrogation of people going about their lawful business is not OK, and allegations they are not lawfully conducting themselves are meant to be handled in one of only a few mandated ways, for reasons that certainly should not need explaining to Administrators.

You are of course also not obliged to provide a private channel for such interrogations to be conducted, if you do not wish to do so. Wikipedia has all the private channels it needs for any such inquiry of this nature to be conducted to this satisfaction of all parties, if the accusers are actually on the level and not trying to pull some shit.

You are fully entitled of course to simply remove any such post to your own talk page without comment, since it is not an actual question that policy remotely expects you to answer as framed, but obviously that sort of aggressive application of your rights by people of low status tends to only be used as a sign of guilt.

As a general rule, if a Wikipedia Administrator ever says something to the effect of, Please don't feel obligated to answer me. then your wisest course of action is always to simply politely say you wish to avail yourself of that option. If they still try to pull some shit, then you will know it wouldn't have mattered what your reply was going to be anyway.

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 Sep 01, 2019 11:26 am

Day whatever.

Nothing is happening, and nobody knows why.

Welcome to the wonderful world of autonomous self-governent.

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 12:01 pm

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe, where I'm the only person who knows this Request exists, and has theoretically passed the threshold for acceptance. Needless to say, nothing to report today. Absolutely nothing.

About the only upside is that the interminable delay only hurts the ferret fucker more. The weather is already starting to turn over here, and it's hard to find other things to do with your time in the miserable months, when your default indoor hobby has for years been to wikifiddle. Other than drink yourself to death, of course.

That he isn't dead yet, only makes it more obvious he must have a secret sock on the go.

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 5:37 pm

I spoke too soon. Obviously the secrecy was because of the ongoing sock-puppetry investigation.....
14:10, 2 September 2019 Mkdw talk contribs blocked Eric Corbett talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{ArbComBlock}}. May appeal only to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org)
Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. Eric Corbett's accounts are hereby indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the case request involving Eric Corbett, which has been accepted by majority vote, will be closed.

Support
Courcelles (per mailing list)
GorillaWarfare (per mailing list)
Joe Roe (per mailing list)
KrakatoaKatie (per mailing list)
Mkdw (per mailing list)
Opabinia regalis (per mailing list)
Premeditated Chaos (per mailing list)

Oppose

Recuse
Worm That Turned (per mailing list)

– Katie 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I would have totally cleared up in the what cowardly way will Eric find to leave Wikipedia given his martyrdom seems out of reach sweepstakes.

The Wikipedians are of course, FREAKING OUT.

How dare the Arbitration committee do this thing that they do a hundred times a day to other users! Don't they know, Eric is special?

Special fucking needs. He's socked before, and got a free pass. No second chances.

Who are these idiots, who genuinely didn't know this is exactly what Eric was probably doing, even while demanding his Arb Case request be declined. Loyalty to Eric earns you nothing except embarrassment as he rubs his bare ass in your race, this much has been proven many times in previous incidents.

The people who long ago switched teams, they're the smart ones. Always go with Drmies, he is an expert in knowing when to betray a Wiki-friend who has lost all chance of remaining a Vested Contributor. If you're too dumb to do that, you can surely figure out that when Ritchie333 stops defending an asshole, you should probably too.

No doubt this block is watertight, lest anyone think he has been set up. It is obviously him behind the aptly named Abuwtiyuw 666 account, the only one being publicly linked. It's gnoming profile matches what he did during his last grand sulk. It is clearly an attempt to edit without being discovered, but if he was, claim he was doing nothing wrong (except, or course, sock-puppetry, which for the mighty Eric, is of course not a crime).

Eric could have been running countless socks, for a long time. That account editted London Beer Flood, and there are lots of suspicious accounts just randomly helping the resident assholes, Eric's gang of friends, who unusually don't seem to mind the help.

I wouldn't even put it past Eric to have self-reported, he probably found it that easy to edit as a sock, with all his scummy mates knowing who he was even if everyone else does not, he probably thought there's no point going through the farce of an ArbCom case just to inevitably be banned, where the true scale of those few people who have been bending over backwards for him, would have been revealed, potentially harming their ability to help him in his new life, as a proper outlaw editor.

Black Kite isn't surprised Eric has been socking, and I am not surprised he is not surprised - Black Kite having form for helping out such outlaws, right under the nose of ArbCom.

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 5:39 pm

Oh, and I nearly forgot.

AHAAHHHAAAHHAAAAAAHHHAHAHAAUUGHHAAAHUGHUHAAAHAFOGMENSHUDIJENNRISMDLLLLBRRRPTPTT!!!!!!!1!1$

: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 6:04 pm

Remember all those weeks ago, when Eric basically ....
I can do everything I want to do without ever logging in again, so feel free to do whatever it is you think you have to. Admittedly I can't do everything others might want me to do, such as FA reviews for instance, but that's hardly my problem. Eric Corbett 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
.... and his enablers FREAKED THE FUCK OUT at the mere suggestion by Sandstein this was an implicit threat to sock.

Well, fuck you. Clearly it was a threat to edit while logged out.

Also, note how even in that regard, Eric was apparently wrong. Turns out there was something he needed to be logged in to do. Even if all that was, was to get his main account blocked.

The one thing you slime balls can do, is thank Sandstein for apparently not remembering you even did any of that, or how right he was to assume it was a threat......
Well, that's unexpected, but it does have the advantage of saving ArbCom and the community another dramafest. I guess this puts Wikipedia into the paradoxical position of having to thank Eric Corbett for going on a socking spree. An indef block is, of course, appropriate under these circumstances. Sandstein 15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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 6:16 pm

See, this isn't right.
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 doesn't sound very sincere to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you have no right being an arbitrator. If admins are meant to be held to a higher standard than us mere mortals, then arbs should be higher still. Appalling attitude. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for the sarcasm. That wasn't called for. But we are all held to the same conduct standards, and I don't think comments like Toadies, the lot of you and Can't even do a simple thing right meet that standard. We're carrying out the role the community has given us to the best of our ability. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to go full Scotty, then go FULL SCOTTY.

Tell that piece of shit to suck your plums for having the audacity to suggest their reaction to finding out Eric is everything people thought he was, an entitled little prick, was acceptable.

They have been making mugs out of you for years. They deserve a damn good kicking.

Apologizing here just shows them you are weak, and so they'll just keep taking the absolute piss.

Post Reply