Page 20 of 37

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:56 pm
by CrowsNest
How brilliant would it be, at the time they're completely under-water dealing with the whole 'Why is tolerant of assholes?' issue, if someone punts this up to ArbCom.

A simple AN/I report about an Administrator baiting a user has descended into farce, because the issue is of course shot through with the backdrop of all of this drama and discord happening solely because the community has indulged Eric Corbett's unmitigated assholery since forever, in a fashion far removed from any reasonable interpretation of policy.

Stand your ground Scotty. Push them all the way. If they block you, unblock yourself. Do anything and everything you can to force this to ArbCom. The worst that can happen to you, under the long established Super Mario principle, is a desysop. Even that would be harsh. But the consequences for Eric, perhaps even Cassianto and Bishonen, they look hugely attractive to people interested in natural justice. Eric would of course immediately retire, but that would surely have to be made formal.

At some point, about the time Casianto or Bishonen realize this is heading for ArbCom, you will probably have to take over and start breaking bones yourself, as they desperately try to backslide out of an investigation that couldn't fail to show their extremely long history of bias and obstruction of anyone seeking to have Eric held to account for his own actions.

And if it doesn't, you send it straight to the Foundation as proof is incapable of self-government. An with an unchecked Eric running amock, forever guarantees the Foundation's promise of a respectful environment, is false advertising.

You know you want to. Embrace the hate. :twisted:

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:30 pm
by CrowsNest
Opps. This isn't covered by BANEX.....
Clearly the facts don't much matter here, but the recent one-month block was not for incivility but for mentioning a certain project with a tangential relationship to GGTF. Eric Corbett 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As I explained recently, it is of course proof Eric is proactively keeping score of the various allowances he has left under each specific restriction.

He wanted everyone to know his last two blocks were for different things. Like they're stupid. Like they can't see the common link - a willingness to test the Administration's resolve in enforcing his myriad different restrictions. Indeed, to even test whether they understand them as well as he clearly does. In both cases, he got what he wanted - protracted and heated debates over what to do about the Eric Corbett problem. Divide and conquer.

The combined result was absurd, as he had surely hoped - a month long block for a mere mention of gender, but just three days for repeated and unapologetic incivility and harassment continuing for weeks, even after the block. He hadn't mentioned gender again though, until now. Presumably confident this is the time to test how they interpret that sanction's wording, so soon after a disputed one month block. And it is less than clear what is supposed to happen. As he has probably spotted.

Anyone who thinks Eric isn't having fun, is probably wrong. There is a perverse sense of fun at work here, that's for sure. As well as bucket loads of hate and a decade old thirst for revenge. But overall, it's Saturday. The weekend is for fun.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:41 pm
by CrowsNest
In context, this was a rather hilarious example of baiting......
Now let's see what charming edit summary you'll come up with for removing this note.
Bishonen already knew Scotty had read and dismissed her notification of the AN/I report about him, which she then learned was itself redundant to an earlier read and removed notification.

So to post again to the user with the sole intent of seeing what insult he would use as he removed that, is surely baiting. Indeed, it is literal baiting, since she was specifically wanting to see what his reaction to be. The post had no other purpose, not even as a warning, since the user is entitled to reject "I see you lol at the notion of replying to the comments on AN,[1] and yawn at WP:ADMINACCOUNT.[2] IMO your behavior is disgraceful" as a warning of any kind.

It must have irked her so that he simply removed it, saying nothing. Good job Scotty.

Play them at their own game. Cassianto in particular is a master of TALK TO THE HAND BITCH. And Bishonen certainly knows her rights regarding what she can and cannot blank, to the letter. And she often blanks legitimate concerns unanswered, except with a perfunctory challenge to take her to AN/I if the user doesn't like it. Well, she's already there.......maybe she can report herself. :lol:

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:09 pm
by CrowsNest
Well, all I can say is well done Cassianto. He thought he was making an opportunistic jab at Scotty, in concert with his Queen Bishonen, and because Scotty showed them his bare arse and said BITE ME, and because Eric couldn't resisting getting involved to remind everyone he's the real victim, and because all his other scuzzy mates wanted in on the action too, it's all gone rather well. All the usual features of an Eric Corbett AN/I thread have been seen, the multiple conduct violations, the hundred and one side issues, the dragging in of all the main issues this one piddling incident was a proxy complaint for, the airing of a bunch of ancient history that just reminded everyone what an absolute arsehole Eric has always been, just to confirm his behaviour in the thread is not out of the ordinary, factual disputes both major and minor, and the usual impassioned pleas to review the incident from as close or far away or from whatever distance necessary to paint Eric in the best possible light, because didn't any of you realise, Eric is the real victim. He's has been harassed. And of course, the inevitable call to punt the whole sack of shit to ArbCom, like they've ever had any fucking clue how to better deal with Eric than the rest of those idiots.

I think they call that screwing the pooch. Or is it the law of unintended consequences. Or just, funny as fuck.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:34 pm
by ericbarbour
There still is no website of the or something in that vein.....
when do we get to pretend he doesn't exist?

(Oh, wait, it's right next to the website showing how many times Jimbotalk was censored this week.)

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:21 am
by JuiceBeetle
Tu-tu-tu-tiram-taram. Let the play begin!

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:40 am
by CrowsNest
Hilarious. Once again, well done Cassianto. Someone should really tell him, even if declined, indeed especially if declined, this is exactly the sort of smoke that Trust and Safety interpreted as fire in the Fram case.

People wanting to follow Wikipediocracy's coverage, although why would you because it's vacuous gabage, their comments are in the Arbitration thread, not Eric's thread, because, well, you know.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:47 am
by CrowsNest
What did I tell you people? Sandstein doesn't play.
I ask ArbCom to take this case and resolve it in such a manner that no more enforcement by individual administrators is necessary – that is, either by lifting the existing sanctions or by imposing site ban(s) as deemed necessary. When attempting enforcement of the existing sanctions, I experienced – in addition to good-faith disagreement with how I went about it – an extraordinary amount of bullying and harassment by what I assume are friends of Eric Corbett, making clear that he is one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. Under these circumstances, admins cannot be asked to do ArbCom's job, which is to deal with intractable disputes in a lasting manner. It doesn't help that the sanctions are now so encrusted with weird exceptions, special rules and codicils that any attempt at enforcement can be wiki-lawyered about forever. In view of the Fram case, the Committee should seek to resolve this case speedily to demonstrate that the community is in fact capable of dealing with longterm incivility and harassment by established users. Sandstein 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep mugging him off, and eventually he's gonna take these views to their inevitable conclusion. He's not going anywhere.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:00 am
by CrowsNest
I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Not even, sorry Eric?

When has this dicksplash said anything meaningful with regard to Eric?

The lack of meaning doesn't stop him commenting on any Eric related drama though. Toxic filth spews forth with absolute predictability.

Let the record show that when it came time for him to open his mouth in the forum of final and binding resolution, Casisanto has nothing to say regarding his recent statements.....
will Scottywong be blocked or admonished for starting trouble?......Someone should have the foresight to deal with the instigator rather than the instigated.........If this kind of provocation didn't exist, Eric wouldn't's even worse when one of the baiters happens to be an admin. Talk about lead by example.
It isn't hard to figure out why this famously opinionated prick his has nothing to say now. He's shut his trap now, because we are at the stage where talking shit doesn't cut it, and doing it viciously doesn't add to its believability.

Re: Eric Corbett

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:35 am
by CrowsNest
Hilarious to see the usual calls that this isn't something that is ripe for Arbitration.

The Committee exists to resolve disputes not being handled effectively by the community. So, what has failed?

* Well, obviously, there is still the whole Eric Corbett problem, however you define it. Even if this is the time for the another kicking of the can down the road, it is beholden on the Committe to formalize that. This is particularly important now that people are wise to the fact that they don't just have to accept this sort of institutional cowardice at the highest level of a project, they do have ways and means to ensure something is done when these people declare they don't want to be the ones to do it.

* There is specifically the issue of a clear failure to understand, much less effectively enforce, his myriad of sanctions. And nobody seems to want them formally clarified or simplified, for fear of making things worse for Eric. A site ban being a very simple resolution. It is inarguable that the recent blocks for mentioning gender and being incivil were met in pretty short order with further breaches of both sanctions, and it seems pretty obvious the intent is deliberate, a case of boundary testing, or drama instigation. Shit, Eric has said enough over recent years for the Committee to defend a finding that he is now set on achieving some kind of martyrdom and is intent on causing maximal disruption and discord on the way there. The Arbitrators who previously argued he was a net positive, have all but lost their ability to make what even back then, was a pretty ridiculous case for mitigation. And given they were clear it was mitigation, not justification, he has surely reached the end of that Committee granted rope, and so all that remains is to snap his scrawny neck with it. The Arbitrator who famously once said he is not a Wikipedia, looks more correct by the day.

* There is the obvious failure to protect Eric from being harassed, if that is what you really want to call it. I call it the squeaky prick getting a beating. And it's not even a beating. Clearly not even Administrators really care now if people think they are deliberately provoking him. There is a duty of care, because as the horrible little fucker has made clear, he's not going anywhere. He wants to stay around and be spat at, to be vilified, to be the centre of attention. He gets off on it. He would be lost without it, as his activity record has proven many times. He doesn't retire in times of stress, he retires when people are ignoring him. We are long past the point where whatever the rights and wrongs, permanent exclusion would simply be a kindness. Keep him trapped in his cage to be poked, the dancing bear of Wikipedia, as his friends happily admit is his true nature, and he might just top himself.

* For the process wonks, this is the perfect time to codify what happens when an editor never apologises or appeals, but the community sees them as indispensable. What currently happens is rather obvious and clearly has high level buy in from corrupt Administrators - just try to ensure using any means necessary, that either they don't get blocked, or they only ever get short blocks, and harass the shit out of anyone not willing to go along with this insult to the otherwise widely accepted view of the purpose of blocks/bans, that they all of course follow when the user isn't remotely special, or a zoo creature.