Eric Corbett

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Moderator: Abd

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby Anyone » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:50 pm

Gaslighted wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.

Yep, the punishments for "socking" are unjust, and often used to push out an editor. Not that I'm sorry for EC: it was silly to start editing on the same ip from another account, after he diva-quit - that's guaranteed CU block. Though calling it "abusive use of multiple accounts" is false. ArbCom saw an easy-lazy way out of a proper case, and they took it. Now that's abuse of / gaming the system (by the arbs), and that's how Wikipedia works. But who cares, right? It does not hurt, until the banhammer falls on one's head, and then one can do nothing, but walk away.

Over on WPO Eric is claiming the account wasn't his. I can believe this.

Perhaps the a/c was set up to defame / smear Eric. I find this very easy to believe.

Think: ARBCOM need to block him. They've been told to do so by the WMF T&S. But an ARBCOM case won't cut it. So, set up a sock [with an IP in his locale], pin it on Eric, and then indeff the little shit.

The point not to overlook is that Wikipedians can be incredibly slimy, devious, hypocritical, dishonest lying scum. They really are filth.
User avatar
Anyone
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:20 am

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:23 am

Carrite wrote:Corbett's one and only hope was laying low for the rest of 2019 and then hoping the new Arbcom totally flushed the bowl of turds now holding office.

But he couldn't keep away because of addiction or something...

I rather doubt there is a route back for him.
Well, you did all you could for him, since it is clear his one and only route was for ArbCom to be composed of the sort of disreputable candidate you campaigned heavily for.

Absolutely no surprise Opabina now stands alone, still pretending like Eric was a mere cause of friction and frustration, still believing there was some way to turn him away from his long chosen path of self destructiion, some way to avoid a case, like we haven't already seen that Eric can't WP:CLEANSTART because the problem was never his "attention-grabbing" name, it was him. His core being.

She wants people to genuinely believe that him being blocked for socking was just some kind of awful avoidable tragedy. Like it was the first time he has ever taken the cowardly way out. It wasn't. Nobody forced him to do it, just like nobody ever forced Eric to do anything he didn't want to do.

Unbelievably, she thinks a simple statement of fact - "He got what he wanted, and he has no one to thank or blame but himself.", is out of order. Doesn't explain how, of course. How could she, when nothing she says about Eric ever relates to the cold hard truth of what he has actually said and done, not what she wishes was his reality, this romanticized bullshit history the likes of Giano wants to push.

Eric's only chance was to have ArbCom entirely composed of people willing to delude themselves. And that is fitting, because he only got this far by benefiting from the fact ArbCom has always been, by a simple majority, been quite willing to delude themselves when it came to this utter piece of shit.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby Carrite » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:36 am

Gaslighted wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.

Yep, the punishments for "socking" are unjust, and often used to push out an editor. Not that I'm sorry for EC: it was silly to start editing on the same ip from another account, after he diva-quit - that's guaranteed CU block. Though calling it "abusive use of multiple accounts" is false. ArbCom saw an easy-lazy way out of a proper case, and they took it. Now that's abuse of / gaming the system (by the arbs), and that's how Wikipedia works. But who cares, right? It does not hurt, until the banhammer falls on one's head, and then one can do nothing, but walk away.


It's not the socking that got him per se, it is the attempt to edit without signing in around a pending Arbcom case. (Especially after saying "Neener neener neener!!!" about it...)

Now we will again observe how it is pretty impossible for WP to actually ban anyone with their system of unverified registration, as Malleus begins to create and use new sock accounts. His enemies will have a field day sock hunting and every bridge back to WP will be burned in the process.

Bottom line: the Net Positive has become a Net Negative and the crows have come home to roost, so to speak, for his years of shitty behavior...

RfB
Last edited by Carrite on Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Carrite
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:37 am

Gaslighted wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.

Yep, the punishments for "socking" are unjust, and often used to push out an editor. Not that I'm sorry for EC: it was silly to start editing on the same ip from another account, after he diva-quit - that's guaranteed CU block. Though calling it "abusive use of multiple accounts" is false. ArbCom saw an easy-lazy way out of a proper case, and they took it. Now that's abuse of / gaming the system (by the arbs), and that's how Wikipedia works. But who cares, right? It does not hurt, until the banhammer falls on one's head, and then one can do nothing, but walk away.
Sorry, but no.

Firstly, there is both an IP and a sock, and it is clear this block is for the sock account, the one he obviously tried to hide, more than his self admitted IP, easily overlooked as his usual vitriol, for which he was always given a free pass with some regularity when done with his main account.

By creating that account, what he did is the literal definition of abusive use of multiple accounts, whatever anyone thinks of the policy. For various very obvious reasons, you simply cannot do it, whoever you are, whatever the edits. So he has, for once in his life, suffered the sanction that any one who did the same thing, would have received. Bearing in mind it is a second offence, having previously been given the benefit of being allowed claim his previous attempt was actually his roomate, and only because it was Eric the unlockable who had been caught.

Nobody can justifiably call such a block, a gaming of the system. It would be gaming to pretend like it didn't happen, just so you can have the case and somehow come up with an outcome that benefits Eric, because I don't think anyone can seriously say it was a foregone conclusion he was going to get banned.

Nobody should care, because like all things Eric has done in his long and disruptive editing career, he did it with his eyes wide open as to the consequences. Who knows, maybe he even thought this time he might get away with it again. But there was only one person looking for a quick way out here - Eric - all you can say about the Arbitrators is they perhaps decided it would be best all round of they finally paid attention to his obvious desire to leave, and facilitated it with a perfectly valid block.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby Carrite » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:53 am

CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.
Well, you did all you could for him, since it is clear his one and only route was for ArbCom to be composed of the sort of disreputable candidate you campaigned heavily for.


Of course you are in full spin mode now, as you always are when anything major happens on wiki.

Not to piss on your parade (but of course I do enjoy pissing on your parade), here is the current active Arbcom and my endorsement level of each..

Courcelles — JUST SAY NO (2018)
GorillaWarfare — RESPECTFUL DECLINE (2018)
Joe Roe — RESPECTFUL DECLINE (2018)
KrakatoaKatie — SUPPORT (2017)
Mkdw — SUPPORT (2018)
Opabinia regalis — HIGHEST SUPPORT (2017)
Premeditated Chaos — SUPPORT (2017)
Worm That Turned — SUPPORT (2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite/ACE2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite/ACE2018

That's 5 supports, 2 soft opposes, and 1 hard oppose. But hey, figuring that out would involve research and you are in propaganda mode...

Of that list, by the way, the only two I would endorse and vote for again are Opabinia r. and WTT. The rest of that lot need to go away.

RfB
User avatar
Carrite
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:00 am

Carrite wrote:
Gaslighted wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.

Yep, the punishments for "socking" are unjust, and often used to push out an editor. Not that I'm sorry for EC: it was silly to start editing on the same ip from another account, after he diva-quit - that's guaranteed CU block. Though calling it "abusive use of multiple accounts" is false. ArbCom saw an easy-lazy way out of a proper case, and they took it. Now that's abuse of / gaming the system (by the arbs), and that's how Wikipedia works. But who cares, right? It does not hurt, until the banhammer falls on one's head, and then one can do nothing, but walk away.


It's not the socking that got him per se, it is the attempt to edit without signing in around a pending Arbcom case.

Now we will again observe how it is pretty impossible for WP to actually ban anyone with their system of unverified registration, as Malleus begins to create and use new sock accounts. His enemies will have a field day sock hunting and every bridge back to WP will be burned in the process.

Bottom line: the Net Positive has become a Net Negative and the crows have come home to roost, so to speak, for his years of shitty behavior...
No, the IP wasn't doing anything he hasn't already been allowed to do as Eric. He would have gotten away with it.

He fucked up by assuming there was still any appetite to allow him to make up the clean start rules by creating an actually deceptive sock.

He has fucked himself because his entire legitimacy came from being "Eric Corbett", a brave unblockable editor doing only good things for Wikipedia, his record serving as his armour, his friends as his shield, all problems coming his way being unjust attempts to crush him.

There will be no honour or even satisfaction in living his life as some kind of sad sack Kumioko type figure. Anyone who outs themselves as a friend and facilitator of Eric the outlaw sock, just puts a target on their own back. They're easily cast as the villains, the people actively working against Wikipedia, rather than nobly trying to reform it to accommodate Eric.

Far more likely is that this was either a genuine attempt to draw a line under it all and leave, or he does plan to sock, but the satisfaction of getting away with it will necessarily have to only be shared by the small group who knows he is doing it. Maybe that is enough for him, but I doubt it. One reason he was so mad these least few years, was clearly because people were starting to not care about him and his bullshit, he wasn't getting the attention he craves, as the Problem Child.

If all he is now is just another sad bastard socking around a block like anyone really cares, good. I don't have a problem with that, I only ever had an issue with him being treated like he was special. He won't get far as a poster child for how easy it is for blocked users to still edit. It's a crowded market, crammed full of self-important idiots, he won't stand out from the other muppets at all.

If he confuses his legacy, with people on the edges of his support base unsure as to whether he is a martry to a corrupt system that they should be trying to smash in his name, or an outlaw whose attempts to circumvent the system they should be facilitating as some kind of slap back to The Man, it will all just work against what has been until a few years ago, a pretty strong brand.

He won't gain any more support by openly, rampantly, socking, screaming catch me if you can! He'll just lose even more support than he has these last couple of years, as he became a right sorry sack of shit, clearly only interested in himself and his ego, not the wider principles of his erstwhile insurrection. Hence why his enemies won't be wasting their time hunting him, but by imitating him. Making him look like the new Kumioko will absolutely fuck his legacy properly.

Eric used to be special. Now he is not. That is all that matters.

Genuine martyrdom was the best he could hope for, if he even is the old Eric of a few years ago, and he even screwed that up. Useless twat.
Last edited by CrowsNest on Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:05 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:00 am

Carrite wrote:Of that list, by the way, the only two I would endorse and vote for again are Opabinia r. and WTT. The rest of that lot need to go away.
Was my point, you dumbass.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby Carrite » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:03 am

CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:Of that list, by the way, the only two I would endorse and vote for again are Opabinia r. and WTT. The rest of that lot need to go away.
Was my point, you dumbass.


It was a very poorly made point which remains confusing to everyone except you, Mr. Tourettes...

I can always tell when I score points on you because you start sputtering insults...

your daddy,

RfB
User avatar
Carrite
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:29 am

Anyone wrote:
Gaslighted wrote:
Carrite wrote:I rather doubt there is a route back for him.

Yep, the punishments for "socking" are unjust, and often used to push out an editor. Not that I'm sorry for EC: it was silly to start editing on the same ip from another account, after he diva-quit - that's guaranteed CU block. Though calling it "abusive use of multiple accounts" is false. ArbCom saw an easy-lazy way out of a proper case, and they took it. Now that's abuse of / gaming the system (by the arbs), and that's how Wikipedia works. But who cares, right? It does not hurt, until the banhammer falls on one's head, and then one can do nothing, but walk away.

Over on WPO Eric is claiming the account wasn't his. I can believe this.

Perhaps the a/c was set up to defame / smear Eric. I find this very easy to believe.

Think: ARBCOM need to block him. They've been told to do so by the WMF T&S. But an ARBCOM case won't cut it. So, set up a sock [with an IP in his locale], pin it on Eric, and then indeff the little shit.

The point not to overlook is that Wikipedians can be incredibly slimy, devious, hypocritical, dishonest lying scum. They really are filth.
The point not to overlook is that the Eric Corbett situation had become so ridiculous, his enablers so blatant, that an Administrator openly provoked him just for the cathartic release, and told the community to take a running jump if they thought they were getting so much as a sorry not sorry. He was just, not sorry.

That was a step change. A clear sign that the gloves were off, certainly as far as some long serving and hard working Administrators were concerned, and hang the consequences.

Not hard to believe that in that environment, someone would step up and do whatever was needed to convincingly set Eric up. Falsify whatever records they need to falsify, send whatever emails they need to send, express whatever concerns they need to express to people who otherwise thought they were deliberating in good faith, to get the obvious outcome if Eric was caught socking.

He's said many times he never appeals, which is kind of a dumb thing to say to people who can conceivably set up the false flag op to obtain the block, but then couldn't conceivably control the appeal without making it a conspiracy too large and complex to succeed.

If this is what has really happened, then really, who but his most loyal supporters is really going to care? Eric got away with so much for so long and it was SO BLATANT and he was so unapologetic, to the point of never failing to cast himself as the true victim, right minded Wikipedians absolutely deserved a free hit. Making it count is just the logical thing to do. Some righteous fucking revenge would have been behind it, that's for damn sure.

I actually quite like the idea Eric might be out there right now crying into his cornflakes that someone has indeed set him up, and finally he can justifiably claim he is the victim. Right when nobody but the most loyal of enablers will even care.

Live by the sword, lie down with dogs, boy who cried wolf, baby hitler, Karma, and all that shit.

Suck it up, Eric. :lol:

Of course, people playing close attention will have not failed to spot that the person who put Eric into the position where such a thing would be possible, was Cassianto, after he was played like a fiddle by Scotty. All to the background music of the enablers incessantly whining their fucking asses off at how Sandstein of all people, the unbribeable rules bound Sandstein who never reacts emotionally even when subjected to horrific bigoted abuse, under the noses of his own colleagues, for just doing his damn job, was the corrupt one in all this.

Wow. I suddenly feel so happy. My German side, I think.

:D
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Eric Corbett

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:41 am

Carrite wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:Of that list, by the way, the only two I would endorse and vote for again are Opabinia r. and WTT. The rest of that lot need to go away.
Was my point, you dumbass.


It was a very poorly made point which remains confusing to everyone except you, Mr. Tourettes...

I can always tell when I score points on you because you start sputtering insults...

your daddy,
As confused as mentioning Tourettes at the same time as you imply my use of insults are indicators of your success? Dumbass.

I can't make it any more simple - an ArbCom of Opabina's is a win for Eric in your eyes. You previously thought that's what you thought you got, but you're unhappy now because it turns out most didn't vote how you had hoped, and yet again we are hearing calls for complete replacement of the committee because it's the worst one ever. As heard with some regularity from the inattentive chuckleheads of Wikipediocracy.

What we need clearly is some that brilliant crop from yesteryear, the people who got Wikipedia and Eric to this position with stupid vote after stupid vote. Luminaries like NewYorkBrad, who has done more than most on the Committee to ensure Eric never ever looked like he was even in the same universe as other editors of similar contributions, as far as responsibility for his own actions was concerned.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron