Eric Corbett

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:00 pm

Better than that, Eric himself is on WO, saying awesome stuff like:

I'm genuinely staggered that you're incapable of reading anything that's on my user page


My user page is accurate, it's your understanding of basic English or logic that isn't.


I had made so many edits as Malleus Fatuorum (and before that as Malleus Fatuaram) that the software wouldn't let me be renamed.


battleground atmosphere created by the militant feminists


your blog is not really intended to be an accurate reflection of the real world, merely a vehicle for you to put forward whatever crackpot nonsense you think you can get away with.


:roll:

I have decided to do a round two, since the first one clearly annoyed him so much.

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 22, 2018 7:08 pm

Dysklyver wrote:his previous account (Malleus Fatuorum)
He switched to using his real name in the misguided belief it would humanize him, make people remember there was a human behind that gruff persona. It didn't work, because in Eric's case, he does a really good job of convincing you that he wouldn't behave any differently if you knew each other in real life. Cue lots of community frustration that they couldn't just punch him in the face for continually doing the things that in real life, tend to get you a punch in the face.
Dysklyver wrote:It's also possible he has been largely taking credit for others work.
Indeed. It is an open secret that he is largely just a copy-editor, which under the Wikipedia system allows him co-credit with the people who did the real grunt work. That isn't to say he doesn't write himself, but that just draws him into conflict with people who question his more important editorial decisions, usually due to what he deems not worthy of mention. Major or minor decisions though, he'd happily fight over all of them.
Dysklyver wrote:Better than that, Eric himself is on WO, saying awesome stuff.....I have decided to do a round two, since the first one clearly annoyed him so much.
Yeah, he's not really annoyed yet. Telling people they can't read and bitching about how he's so persecuted is virtually normal conversation for him. Two pint stuff.

You need to copy those posts over here, Wikipediocracy has a habit of sweeping it all under the carpet. Careful you don't get banned, for some reason they don't consider conversing with Eric over matters of fact to be within their mission.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by AndrewForson » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:00 pm

Eric also prepared an alternate User:William Leadford, named after a character in an H.G.Wells story, which was semi-secretly semi-officially approved as a clean start in 2010 without connection to his other account. He started off behaving as if he was a newbie, edited with the two accounts at the same time (to within a few minutes) and finally linked it to a Malleus account three years later, just before switching to his Eric account. There are probably other socks he put away in a drawer somewhere.

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 Aug 25, 2018 1:00 pm

I remember that Kirt (?) used to get very heavily criticised at RfA because he opposed all self-nominations. but there's a good case to be made that anyone who wants the job isn't fit to have it.
Really? Other than reinforcing the cliche, what are these good reasons? I bet Eric can't name any that aren't clear and obvious failures to 'assume good faith'. You can just imagine this prick seeing someone who says they want the Admin toolset to protect children or author's intelectual property, and saying, yeah but no dude, you asking for the tools is evidence you are lying.
I think that the differing standards voters apply at RfA correspond to their different perceptions of what it is that administrators actually do
No shit Sherlock. Wikipediocracy is not really known as the font if wisdom, but being the platform of choice for people who can merely state the obvious, that's not a good look, surely.
[Wikipedia Administrators] clearly don't administrate anything in any sense that would be recognised in the real world.
Really? I've worked in several places which had specific Officers chosen and trusted to mediate disputes, deny access to certain areas if not the entire building, and counsel new employees in the right and wrong way to do things. What a tremendous lack of imagination (or sheer persecution complex) for Eric to say such a dumb thing as this.
If administrators are perceived to be street judges like Judge Dredd, as they are, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to have worked at the coal face of content creation before they're allowed to pass sentence on other editors.
This, I really would love to see explained. Bonus points if it can be done with reference to Dredd canon. It is a total myth that content contributions are a good indicator of likely performance with the tools. It is about having good judgement and temperament, and Eric is living proof you need neither to be considered even an elite content contributor on Wikipedia. In fact, I think someone has even proven there is no relation, with hard data. It sounds like something SoWhy et al might have done at some point. It would hardly be the first time Eric says something that he firmly believes, that is objectively untrue.
Part of the problem that Philafrenzy had was that nobody really believes anything that any candidate says about what they intend to spend their time doing should they become elected. Vacuous promises about working on backlogs in areas that very few have heard of and even fewer care about cut no ice, at least only in the minds of the terminally credulous.
How is this a problem exactly? Since there are no technical means to limit Administrators to activities they specify an interest in before promotion, and since Wikipedia has no record of adequately running an honor based system even if the wider community had any mind to use it in this way, which they do not, then it make absolutely perfect sense to ignore the answer to RfA standard question 1 (why do you want to be Administrator). It makes perfect sense that the first thing they plan to do with the tools, is to block their enemies and protect their articles, so you approach the task as if an exercise in reassuring yourself they are not that kind of person (an idea that seems to also trouble Eric, as per the recent post in the fan board thread).

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by Dysklyver » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:31 pm

CrowsNest wrote:
If administrators are perceived to be street judges like Judge Dredd, as they are, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to have worked at the coal face of content creation before they're allowed to pass sentence on other editors.
This, I really would love to see explained. Bonus points if it can be done with reference to Dredd canon. It is a total myth that content contributions are a good indicator of likely performance with the tools. It is about having good judgement and temperament, and Eric is living proof you need neither to be considered even an elite content contributor on Wikipedia. In fact, I think someone has even proven there is no relation, with hard data. It sounds like something SoWhy et al might have done at some point. It would hardly be the first time Eric says something that he firmly believes, that is objectively untrue..


Very hard to put this into Dredd canon. The judges are generally not integrated into the populace and don't act like them. The only one who really is would be Dirty Frank, but I doubt Wikipedia admins want to be seen like him!

Judge Dredd judges are also far from being above the law, making it hard to equate that with Wikipedia admins and the "super mario effect", therefore Jack Point is a better comparison, inane clowns who act like they are above the law and ignore all consequences, but are actually not part of the law and hold no legitimate power.

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 Aug 25, 2018 2:53 pm

I just randomly stumbled on a bit of recent history of Eric's. One of his last acts as a supposed content expert.

I had mentioned it here before.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... lyon#p3305

Looks like I was wrong.

How do you defeat Eric and his ilk? Persistence, and never stooping to their level. Tactical nouse, in other words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Baby/Archive_1&oldid=850464921#Requested_move_18_March_2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_Baby#Requested_move_24_May_2018

Dicky boy launched that request a couple of weeks into Eric's disappearance. You have to assume he didn't notice, or he would have surely dived back in to fight the good fight.

It must boil his cancer free piss to know his usual tactics failed him there, eventually. Even if he was around, it seems likely be would have lost the second round. I hope news of this defeat in absentia adds to his claimed new found wisdom that he and Wikipedia are simply incompatible.

People like Dicklyon never deserved to be subjected to his bile and bullshit, and a pox on all those who facilitated it for all those years. They should thank their lucky stars that Dicklyon is as focused on content as he is. Although it probably annoys them he didn't try to take them on at AN/I, thus avoiding a Dennis Brown NOTHERE block for annoying little Eric.

Honestly, what more proof do people need that Eric is not and never was a decent Wikipedia editor? Not unless one assumes it's no big thing for an encyclopedia to be the thing that actually drives changes in how things are named!

Thankfully, it really does seem there will be no more changing of history for Eric. Via Wikipedia anyway. Sadly for the Wikipedians, reflecting badly on their much desired status as writers of a so called encyclopedia, they had no (active) part in him making that decision. Some even want him to return.

Just another reminder that the issues Eric posed for Wikipedia went way beyond civility. They sure flunked that test.

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 Aug 26, 2018 1:42 pm

The existence of a link or diff proves nothing beyond that it exists.
Says the ferret fucker who said, in the face of damming links showing his sock-puppetry, that his "roommate" tragically lost their interest in Wikipedia far too early due to the evil Wiki judges' rush to judgement. And who was never seen or heard of again. Not even lamented by his dear pal Eric, his 50 something room mate. :roll: :oops:

Turn it in Eric. Your pseudo philosophy on the meaning of Things Wikipedia, is, and always has been, pure bunk. You are a proven Billy Bullshitter, a disgusting manipulator of other people's need to see the good in all things, and never want to feel like their friends and allies could betray them. It's why you get on so well with Poetlister now. Kindred spirits.

By Your Deeds, Ye Shall Be Known. Ferret Fucker.

Still, hope all is well with friends and family, and your new hobbies, etc, etc. :D

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by Dysklyver » Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:02 pm

CrowsNest wrote:Ferret Fucker.
Heh.

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 Aug 26, 2018 4:38 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:Ferret Fucker.
Heh.
Not too far from the truth. Let's just say they are definitely one of his hobbies.....maybe even his "room-mate"? Clever little bastards that they are (or did I simply learn that from Eric's wiki-fiddling?).

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 Aug 27, 2018 2:13 am

Copyright and paraphrasing are two different things; courts are not concerned about paraphrasing. And merely winning a copyright case is no big deal anyway unless you can prove that you have suffered some financial loss as a direct result of any copyright violation. That is in fact the basis of Wikipedia's fair-use policy.
What. The. Fuck.

He's really has lost it this time. Sentence one is a bizarre statement of the obvious, and obviously irrelevant, given the topic of conversation is how close to a source can you get without breaching copyright (the obvious answer being, it depends). Sentence two is laughable - as I outlined here recently, the very nature of Wikipedia means proving financial loss is a piece of piss, it comes down to simply now much, and that is often calculated in ways that leaves Wikipedia, or rather the Wikipedian, facing a huge bill. The third sentence is straight up nonsense. You are not granted Fair Use based on anything other than your legitimate interest in otherwise denying someone their legal rights. That there rights may be worth nothing is immaterial.

Four in the afternoon is a little early to be drinking Eric.

Post Reply