Page 19 of 37

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:20 am
by CrowsNest
Behold, the effectiveness of a three day block......
.....I propose that you extract your head from your arse ...... Eric Corbett 20:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Poor little Eric. Just keeps getting baited and baited. His opponent must truly be a master-baiter to be getting away with it, despite the presence of multiple Administrators sympathetic to the ferret fucker. And to be fair, EEng is the closest Wikipedia has to a master-baiter. Usually though, they're all laughing along because he's just so funny.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:39 am
by CrowsNest
Just the way this place works. You either suck it up or you leave, that's the Wiki-way. Sucking it up has never been my style though. Eric Corbett 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Says the guy who has both frequently rage-quit, and when not quitting in a huff, greeted every attempt to force him to suck it up with extended tantrums and sulks, like the one he is engaged in right now.

Sucking it up implies a level of maturity and ability to deal with your emotions that is manifestly far beyond this manchild. Still, if Eric possessed an ounce of self-awareness, or a capacity for shame, he wouldn't be like this at all.

Even his long standing position never appealing a block, no matter how good or bad it was, comes across not has brave, but childish. Stoicism implies standing up for yourself and facing adversity with dignity and resolve. It doesn't imply doing nothing while you claim people are pissing on you and telling you it is raining.

It certainly doesn't imply the openly admitted attitude he's adopted for years now, namely sticking around just to piss his perceived enemies off. It also doesn't imply making the job of defending him the worst task in the whole of Wikipedia, quite the reverse, it suggests you are capable of and willing to defend yourself.

The only sucking up he does, is apparently to become Facebook friends with sympathetic Administrators, buffering them up in the hopes of favourable treatment. And hey, you can't say it doesn't work.....
Welcome back
Welcome back, Eric. You do some very good work here. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Look at the timestamp, and that of the comment in the post before this one.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:02 am
by CrowsNest
Looks like Eric has a new enabler in chief. ... 361#p11361

All that butt kissing over Facebook certainly paid off handsomely.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:17 am
by CrowsNest
How long before they reach he same conclusion that has been reached, and apparently forgotten, many times before?

Eric is not prickly. Eric is not a bear. Eric is a complete and total mental case, someone so jammed up with psychoses and complexes, most of which clearly didn't originate from his Wikipedia exoerience, that the only logical treatment is isolation. If Eric is to remain on Wikipedia, if there is to be no more Eric related drama, you literally need to put him in a cage. Tightly control who has access to him at all times, as well as what he can touch. We're talking Hannibal Lecter type precautions here. Not exactly doable on a wiki.

Easier, and arguably kinder, just to apply the long overdue lethal injection. Putting him down for his own sake, that has been the only time this whole Eric is a wild animal who cannot be tamed analogy has ever been apt.

And let's face it, you won't be short of volunteers looking to depress the plunger, and with a great big smile on their face too. Because the unpalatable truth for his enablers is, Eric is not an animal, he knows exactly what he is doing at all times, and it is a rare thing indeed that he does something he later regrets, perhaps because his emotions overrode his better self.

Indeed, has he ever offered this as an explanation? Not that I recall. Never regrets, never apologises. Not because of pride as some enablers have taken to claiming, but because everything about him tells him he is always right, what he does is always justifiable, because he is always the victim.

Hence the absolute thirst for revenge even among many of the saintly Administrators. You would have sympathy for the plight of a rabid dog. You have only hate for unapologetic career criminals.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:40 am
by CrowsNest
See. Even while he is supposedly having one of his 'omfg someone triggered Eric' episodes, he can be found elsewhere making perfectly calm and lucid points, exuding the image of someone who is perfectly in control of their emotions, their sniping nature being a product of higher, not lower, brain activity.
Any serious attempt at producing an encyclopedia would of course have a consistent citation system, and even a consistent way of presenting dates, but Wikipedia is not a serious attempt at anything other than providing a free income stream for the WMF. Eric Corbett 20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
To truly understand Eric, you need to understand that this hoped for single citation system and date format would have to be the one he chooses, and if the community chose one he didn't like, there would be no question of him stoically getting on with things, he would instead just enter one of his classic decade long tantrums, adding to the few he has running concurrently now.

The paranoid delusions of Eric are manifest here of course, since as anyone knows, the myriad of citation systems in use at is entirely outside of the control of the WMF, and if they even dared do a sensible thing like suggest the community might like to adopt a single system for reasons such as manifest professionalism, or helping readers, or even just enabling all the software tools to work better, a suggestion they have made in the past, the community just rises up to tell them precisely where they can shove it. On the Eric supported basic principle that the volunteers know best when it comes to matters left to their domain. His patented addition being that he knows bestest.

We're talking about a guy whose last significant act of encyclopedia building was to create and roll out his own brand new header templates to change the way "Footnotes" renders in the TOC. There is a time and a place for such bold acts of SOFIXIT, but as Eric alludes to here, novel citation standards across a personal collection of articles he seeks to OWN, is not it. Inevitably, it was deleted, wasting much community time and resource, and inevitably, he reacted like a petulant child and a vicious little bastard who was the real victim.

I would have far more respect for Eric's enablers if they could just demonstrate they even know who he is and what he does, and then somehow try to justify why. As is all too easy to show, their idea of who Eric is and what he does, is a pure fantasy, created to make the why seem more pallatable. It's what they want to believe is the truth, or worse, it is a grand lie they're hoping people without the time or inclination to check, just swallow unquestionably.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:48 am
by Graaf Statler
Wikipedia in this form is extreme toxic and can be compared with heroine.

People lose compete there decorum and start to do the things they absolute abhor themselves, just like a junky does. And you can only have a sharp view at the moment you are absolute wiki clean.
I said it many times before, this wikipedia is the same as the optical illusion What is on A man's Mind.
It is simple impossible to see and the digital hell Wikipedia and the wonder wikipedia in the same time. You can only see one of the two. And I see that wikihell and what it does with people like Eric his mind very, very clear.

Wikipedia isn't the wonder what makes you from a nickel a dime. It can make you less that a cent.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:13 am
by CrowsNest
What is on A man's Mind indeed.

Speaking of which......
Since we can't inspect the insides of each other's heads, we don't know other's intent. Scotty made a post that he should have known was provocative, a few days after Eric was's enough that you're an admin and Eric is not, which means that you have more power here.....There was absolutely no call for Scotty to go there and poke Eric. Please hold yourself to a higher standard. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
In this case, given the history, it is indisputable that he knew it would provoke Eric. The lack of any attempt to deny it, is the cherry on top.

Spoiler alert - he doesn't care.

Second spoiler alert. Cassianto isn't reporting him because he believes in universal standards. He saw an opportunity to go after one of Eric's enemies, and he found it irresistible, not remotely caring how hypocritical it makes him look.

This is what the years long farce that the Wikipedia Administration's treatment of Eric has produced. It has gone beyond mere disagreement as to the right approach. It has toxified. People like Scotty are fed up to the back teeth of it. So much so I'm sure he doesn't give a damn what the consequences might be for poking Eric, whether it violates the higher standard of Administrator or even the general standard applied to all editors.

The rule against poking clearly doesn't apply to Cassianto, and the continued protection of Queen Bishonen is a big reason why. That more than makes up for his supposed powerless in the face of Administrators trying to enforce minimal standards, like no personal attacks. It ensures the only standard that maters, is hers, and she has for many years been undermining WP:CIVIL and arguing for a world where Vested Contributors are protected. Not just arguing, doing. Using her power to do so, and fuck anyone who suffers for it, usually anyone unfortunate enough to do something that triggers the assholes.

Do they think people don't know this? Do they assume people like Scotty are blind? Or stupid? Or both.

There comes a point where being the bigger man, seeking to apply to the same standard to all, and taking all their abuse for it, just doesn't cut it. There comes a time for most ordinary humans, a breaking point, when you realize how attractive it is, to start torturing your torturers. To use your power to torment them. To use it to provoke. To use it to put them in a situation where they're the ones who end up hurting. It called revenge. And it's brilliant.

If the consequences for this mild poke are themselves mild, he might even do it again. In a world where Eric cannot be blocked for more than three days, why bother about any notions of standards or indeed ethics? If anyone who does anything Eric doesn't like is going to be accused of deliberate provocation, well, why not be everything they say you are? This is Eric's excuse after all. And boy does it work for him.

I mean, I'm not saying anything here that quite a few Administrators who have reached the end of their tether haven't poured out of their souls in posts of complete and total despair before. All of which have been promptly ignored by Eric's enablers, as if there really would be no long term consequences, either for Eric or Wikipedia.

Eric has poisoned everyone. No surprise it results in extremely disturbing behavior all round.

It has gone on for so long, it has been so ridiculously unethical, I'm actually quite surprised the institutional reaction to Eric in terms of how many of the good people are prepared to go rogue just for the chance of giving him a proper back-alley beating, has been so limited. For all their whining, there has been incredible restraint shown. By rights, he shouldn't even be able to walk by now, and certainly be missing all his teeth.

You don't need to be a genius to understand that turning Wikipedia into a lake of flaming shit, has been Eric's sole goal for years. He is the problem. He has always been the problem. It's only ever been a case of asking, how far do his enablers really want to take it? Do they really want to destroy Wikipedia, just to prove that they can retain a toxic editor for their toxic reasons, and damn what any policy says.

They could have changed the policies years ago to explicitly say disgusting animals like Eric are to be tolerated to the nth degree, perennially excused with transparently laughable claims of diminished responsibility in the face of extreme provocation, thereby aligning with current practice. It would have been hard, but still an easier way to achieve their goals in the long run. They did not, because it's patently ridiculous when you say it out loud. Even after all these years, Eric has barely even begun to face serious consequences or be subjected to extreme provocation. And that is arguably the whole reason for this ongoing farce.

His enablers have ensured he missed all the steps inbetween mild wrist slaps and the inevitable lethal injection, the botching of which will probably cause a constitutional crisis that will make Framgate look like a mere trifle. So there is at least that hilarious realization to make the likes of Scotty feel so much better. Because we at least know that whoever loses, Eric will never win.

The long view. Really really long.

:lol: :twisted:

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:29 am
by CrowsNest
As usual, Wikipediocracy had to lock their thread on Eric right before the on-wiki events started to get really interesting, all because they're more interested in actually fighting Eric than educating onlookers as to what is actually behind all this nonsense.

Nice one Jake. Doing a great job there, as usual. :roll: :lol:

I mean, it is rather obvious, but you do seriously not realize that Eric only engages your crowd in battle because he knows he can get you to lock the thread so you stop talking about him? He doesn't come here to battle me, because he knows the difference with us is, we bring facts and compelling analysis to table. Something he has historically never been able to handle. We're about studying the zoo, being cruel if needs be, if it is ethically justified. You're simply about eating the shit the animals produce, or letting your own animals fight theirs for no ethical reason at all, rather, simply because you either enjoy it, see it as a crowd pleaser, inevitably having to shut it down when it goes too far, because you simply can't control them and your true natures are revealed. How many times have you had to yank Vigilant's chain over this one spat? Three? Pretty soon, if he hasn't already, he's gonna become wise to the fact you don't have the balls to do anything to actually challenge him, if it comes to it. Dogs are pretty smart like that. He is your very own Eric Corbett. Much like Wikipedia, you should have concentrated on attracting academics, not animals.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:40 pm
by CrowsNest
Gee. It's such a mystery, is it not?
Welcome back
Welcome back, Eric. You do some very good work here. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words, something I've grown unaccustomed to here. ;-) Eric Corbett 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Any serious attempt at producing an encyclopedia would of course have a consistent citation system, and even a consistent way of presenting dates, but Wikipedia is not a serious attempt at anything other than providing a free income stream for the WMF. Eric Corbett 20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say some level of variable consistency isn't a bug but a feature. An article about world history heavily using a few print sources, for example, a scientific article relying on journals, and a recent television episode based on web sources have different priorities in how they use their sources, and so expecting them to align exactly seems folly. Shorter articles are easier to just use a single reflist and be done with it, whereas longer articles may benefit from having a notes/refs dichotomy. I think we’d be better off with a slightly narrower gamut of styles (deprecating style-guide-specific options like MLA or parenthetical Harvard citations, for example) but I can't recommend a single style overall. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That you can't doesn't mean that others can't. Eric Corbett 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps enlighten us then as to the One True Reference Style to rule them all? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Come on, all you wikishits. Who is to blame for making Eric post this spectacularly dismissive comment? And who would be to blame if DWF had responded the way Eric usually does, to such blatant disrespect? Shit, who is to blame for that being such a snippy reply? It's obviously DWF, in a world where editors are responsible for their own actions. But in your bizarre Eric pandering world? It's Eric, is it not? I'm right, aren't I? What do I win? Or is this too fucking obvious to even be called a test?

Will the great Eric even bother to answer the request for information on what he thinks is the one style that fits all articles? Assuming he can overcome the trauma of being spoken to the way he speaks to others, albeit in an incredibly mild way. Or is he above such mundane things? This page of course being just for him to whine, right? Gotta let the baby air his grievances, otherwise he just gets all bottled up and lashes out in frustration. Can't help himself. All Sandstein's fault, right? Touched him in his special place, right? Scarred for life.

Which one of you is his Designated Question Answerer today? I think it's usually the one who rimmed his anus last, is it not?

Cullen, you're up!


Seriously, these people. If you were in a room with Eric and Cullen, probably a bar because they're two old white dudes who are full of themselves and want to run the world, it would be genuinely hard to know which one to smash over the head with the pool cue first. Speaking hypothetically of course.

I'm so tempted to pay Eric a visit in real life. He isn't far from me. I'd scream in his face, spit in his pint, call his wife a whore, and see if he reacted with even half the viciousness he does to the mildest of pokes on Wikipedia. I think he'd shrivel up into a little ball and avert his gaze, if he didn't just die of a heart attack on the spot. Cullen is probably the real fighter. The people who can be so calm online, but at the same time being so manifestly evil, they're the ones who would stab you over nothing, the fucking pyschos.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:36 pm
by CrowsNest
Scotty's given no indication that he understands he needs to refrain from such behavior; indeed, he seems to find this all very amusing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure he does. All normal people would. Given the context is that ERIC CORBETT HAS NEVER ONCE DONE THAT. Up to and including finding it amusing. Eric must sit there laughing his ass off watching his enablers scrabbling around trying to find a way to get someone who never admits fault and never appeals, out of a block. Indeed, to use Scotty's prior block of him, says shit like this......
Nothing will have changed by 4 August, and certainly not my attitude to editing here. Consequently I'm making a formal request to have the length of this block made indefinite rather than one month. And as I've never appealed a block, and made it very clear I never would, as I consider that to be demeaning, that should satisfy all those who so much want to see the back of me. It'll also mean of course that any temptation on my part to return on 4 August is removed. Eric Corbett 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
They hit on the solution years ago - do everything in their power to stop him ever getting blocked, or as a lesser outcome, keep it to a short block. If that means telling lies about how he's only ever reacting, they do. If that means telling lies about how he is only ever provoked, they do. If that means filing retaliatory reports on anyone who remotely looks like a future threat to Eric's charmed life, they will. If that means looking the other way while Sandstein is called the "good German", and loudly denouncing his supposed involvement, offering zero proof, they will. If that means creating an entirely different block policy for one precious user, they will.

You should be thanking your lucky stars that all Scottywong finds here, is humour. I mean, I could remind him that the person who undercut him back in the day for his "bad faith" accession to that request for an indef block, was Floquenbeam. That might give him some ideas over what he could really do, what he could start smashing up, what negative press attention he could bring to bear, for the point of principle at stake here. If you can violate office actions to save Wikipedia, you can beat a little shit like Eric up just to cause a similar massive crisis, right? Get the Foundation to have to either globally ban an Administrator pushed to breaking point, or finally address the Eric Corbett problem.

It was probably a bad idea to even link to that past AN/I as proof of the history here. What was possibly long forgotten, may now be being remembered. The lengths to which the usual suspects have always gone to defend the ferret fucker, and smash to pieces anyone who finds that even remotely irksome. That's gotta piss right thinking people off no end, being so thoroughly mugged off like that, year after year. Gotta leave people looking for revenge. Looking for someone to hurt.

Anyone who puts as much as Scotty does into Wikipedia, is donating their time and energy to a community who is happy to let Eric basically do whatever he wants. It's hard to be happy with that. Especially with Bishonen having the brass neck to call your behaviour disgraceful. Your crime? Not taking an AN/I report seriously, showing contempt for your responsibilities and your fellow editors. Basically, doing what Eric has always done, and will continue to do, whatever anyone else does, least of all the Administrators. They can apply a hundred more short blocks, and he'll still be the same fucking asshole, with the same piece of shit defenders. So with that in mind, in hindsight, who wouldn't look back on that July 2013 request, and accept it, for his own good as much as for Wikipedia.

Embrace the hate, Scotty. :twisted: