I know the Committee is rammed, so I'll do them a solid and wrap this up for them quickly.
Findings of fact....
1. Eric Corbett continues to be a source of division
2. Eric Corbett continues to ignore, deflect and equivocate concerns about his own behaviour
3. Eric Corbett continues to state positions that are antethical to Wikipedia editing, specifically the purpose of sanctions and the nature of collaborative editing
4. The condition of Wit's End has been reached
Remedy
1. Community reminded to read all the policies, and delete/revise the ones being widely ignored
2. Administrators reminded they're a bunch of cowardly small minded petty little cunts who clearly don't give a tiny rat's ass about even trying to follow their own role specific policy, and would seemingly rather see Wikipedia burn to the ground. All of them.
3. For being so comprehensively not a Wikipedian, and having squandered every single opportunity to demonstrate he could be one, Eric Corbett is banned for a year, and thereafter indefinitely until such time as an appeal is submitted that is absolutely comprehensive in its acceptance of the reasons for his ban and the measures that he will take to avoid a repeat occurrence should he be returned to the community.
Eric Corbett
Re: Eric Corbett
Same old same old.
HOW COULD IT BE ANY CLEARER, YOU UTTER LYING BASTARDS?
A Case is requested to examine the ongoing disputes over the incivility of Eric Corbett, because they are wasting an inordinate amount of community time and the existing sanctions are clearly wholly disputed. Simples.
You're only calling it incoherent because you don't want to acknowledge what it says. You don't want to do that because it would force you to either issue laughable denials of what he has said, or say some other bullshit that would be equally ridiculous, none of which would be a coherent reason why such a case is not warranted.
Two of those liars are Administrators. There's your problem, right there. Forget ArbCom, these people can be disappeared by Trust and Safety using existing Foundation policy quite easily. They are exploiting the long-standing inability of en.wiki governance to deal with a basic but serious conduct issue like Administrators who lie to maintain a hostile environment. That non-Admin friends of the accused also lie with impugnity, literally people who know them IRL, is just the chrerry on top of the whole corrupt cake.
MJL can't even really work out what they want the case to consider
.....a request for a case that doesn't even contain a coherent case request......
What the fuck is this then..........This is possibly the most incoherent case request I have ever seen and at no point does it specify what the filer actually thinks the problem is or what an arb case is expected to achieve......
......boiled fish?Hello. I am MJL. Today, I ask you open up a full case on Eric Corbett.
Incivility
This is written from my perspective as a newer user that started being active only in 2019 and has never never interacted with Eric before June 2019. Eric Corbett is not the most civil person I know........
Protracted dispute
Between these five (yes 5) previous cases, it's been found that time-and-time-again, the community just doesn't quite agree on how best to handle Eric. In 2019, it's consumed several weeks of our time already. In years past, by the looks of it, this issue has taken many months to discuss. We all agree on the fact that none of the previous remedies are working quite right, but that's where agreement ends and drama begins.......
Final thoughts
There's been no signs that this dispute will end anytime soon.......I [n]ever want to get complacent with our collective ability to handle incivility or harassment issues on this site and within the community. This dispute, no matter who is truly to blame, stands in the way of the constructive editing environment I feel we so desperately deserve.
Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
HOW COULD IT BE ANY CLEARER, YOU UTTER LYING BASTARDS?
A Case is requested to examine the ongoing disputes over the incivility of Eric Corbett, because they are wasting an inordinate amount of community time and the existing sanctions are clearly wholly disputed. Simples.
You're only calling it incoherent because you don't want to acknowledge what it says. You don't want to do that because it would force you to either issue laughable denials of what he has said, or say some other bullshit that would be equally ridiculous, none of which would be a coherent reason why such a case is not warranted.
Two of those liars are Administrators. There's your problem, right there. Forget ArbCom, these people can be disappeared by Trust and Safety using existing Foundation policy quite easily. They are exploiting the long-standing inability of en.wiki governance to deal with a basic but serious conduct issue like Administrators who lie to maintain a hostile environment. That non-Admin friends of the accused also lie with impugnity, literally people who know them IRL, is just the chrerry on top of the whole corrupt cake.
Re: Eric Corbett
Unsurprisingly, nobody believes him.I know from experience how these affairs always end up with a proposal to ban me for whatever trumped-up reason, and that anything I might say will be twisted to suit the agenda of those whose single purpose is to hound me off Wikipedia. So I'll do everyone a favour by leaving voluntarily. After this post I will be scrambling my password, and you will never hear from me again. Eric Corbett 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if he scrambles his password, it would take him all of an hour to get back on Wikipedia, less of the person he reaches out to is already online, and a Steward is available.
A meaningless but entirely cowardly gesture, designed to elicit sympathy and take the heat off.
How fitting.
He will be back, because this is in no way the martyrdom he has been dreaming of. He won't even be going anywhere, he will be socking.
Re: Eric Corbett
Do you hear yourself?
I mean, feel free to deny it if you dare, but I know you won't.
Eric deserves it as much because he has friends like you, than because of anything he does. And what he does, is enough to deserve it, given the system that's supposed to deal with it, is dysfunctional. Because pieces of shit like you are the ones in charge, stacking the decks and rigging the tables. So we default to an eye for an eye. People can't do anything about the fact you're an Administrator, so beating up your special flower is the next best thing.
If you never stop carrying water for him, his suffering will never stop.
Simple as that. Always been that simple. You're just that fucking stupid, or that cruel to your friends.
You do realise, Eric operates under the illusion his abuse is warranted because his targets deserve it.Whenever anyone brings up the trolling and lack of courtesy shown toward Eric, the conversation is redirected to be about things he's said, apparently to make us think he deserves whatever abuse is aimed at him. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, feel free to deny it if you dare, but I know you won't.
Eric deserves it as much because he has friends like you, than because of anything he does. And what he does, is enough to deserve it, given the system that's supposed to deal with it, is dysfunctional. Because pieces of shit like you are the ones in charge, stacking the decks and rigging the tables. So we default to an eye for an eye. People can't do anything about the fact you're an Administrator, so beating up your special flower is the next best thing.
If you never stop carrying water for him, his suffering will never stop.
Simple as that. Always been that simple. You're just that fucking stupid, or that cruel to your friends.
Re: Eric Corbett
These people need medical help.
Gandydancer is yet another of those Wikipedia women who just like the thrill of being friends with a bad boy. If Eric ever treated her the way he has treated his enemies, she'd be screaming the same place down, if she really is this sensitive to meanness.
People are doing what precisely because they are sick to the back teeth of this exact sort of bullshit. In what universe, is Eric not mean? He's an absolute asshole, that's his default to anyone he thinks has done him wrong.Cullen, it was good to see you speak up for Eric. It was good to see Slim speak out as well. There was just so much plain damn meanness on that page that it was disturbing to have to know that I am working with people like that. Gandydancer (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer is yet another of those Wikipedia women who just like the thrill of being friends with a bad boy. If Eric ever treated her the way he has treated his enemies, she'd be screaming the same place down, if she really is this sensitive to meanness.
Re: Eric Corbett
RE: Cassianto
Mason on WPO wrote:That may be the most jaw-dropping "own goal" I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Flings the boomerang, hits his friend smack in the face with it.
Re: Eric Corbett
I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Accept the case, with it to be suspended. If at any point Eric decides to return, we will reopen the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Accept. Putting aside the immediate background to this request, based on Eric Corbett's block log, the long list of AN & AE discussions, and the diffs above that show violations of his sanctions that were not followed up on, it's obvious that this is a long-term problem that neither the community nor previous ArbComs have been able to solve. I'm especially mindful of Sandstein's statement; highly personalised sanctions like EC's only work if they don't place an undue burden on other editors to enforce. The scope of the case should be Eric Corbett's conduct plus the issue of 'baiting' by other editors. I'm not sure about suspending: EC has 'left' the project before. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, you're up.
Cassianto?
CASSIANTO!
*checks around*
Ah, of course. He's done his usual, and gone to the person directly to pour his sycophantic slime all over them.
Has apparently got nothing to say about the rest of the accept, of course, the little bitch. Just this nonsensical appeal to keep extending good faith to the person who has literally accused these people of conspiracy to eliminate him unfairly. As if his history is seriously that of someone that the powers that be have been trying to get rid of.WP:AGF
"...EC has 'left' the project before." Please try and assume good faith and leave out the sarcasm. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 07:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Finally however, it seems the Committee are now waking up to this bullshit, and Joe sent Cassianto away with a flea in his ear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =911498019
Re: Eric Corbett
Seriously, DO YOU HEAR YOURSELVES?
Two Arbitrators have of course accepted - Gorilla Warfare, whose attempts to deal with Eric during previous terms, were voted down. She was re-elected this term by a landslide. Joe has also accepted, and he is a first time Arbitrator who stood on a platform of getting tough on asshole editors.
Indeed, when you look at the rest of the six Arbitrators who got elected most recently, there isn't a single one who has a history of going soft on assholes, except Courcelles, the only one who has previously sat on an Eric case, and he is hopefully not going to participate because he is travelling and thus won't have the time to do a proper job of assessing the evidence. If he does try to vote, you'll know why.
Ched is an Administrator who quit Wikipedia long ago, because he didn't like the way people kept expecting him to block, rather than defend, his asshole mates, chiefly Eric. He came crawling back recently when it became clear it's actually not a firing offence to go to extreme lengths to abuse your tools to defend assholery.
You can almost guarantee he is planning to pull a Floquenbeam, if Eric gets banned.
Has the Eric Corbett problem been fxed? No. Who has failed to fix it? Previous ArbComs.Statement by Ched
Hmmmm ... let's see. You've got 4 ex-arbs saying decline, and 0 that I see saying to accept. You might want to let that sink in a bit. — Ched : ? — 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Two Arbitrators have of course accepted - Gorilla Warfare, whose attempts to deal with Eric during previous terms, were voted down. She was re-elected this term by a landslide. Joe has also accepted, and he is a first time Arbitrator who stood on a platform of getting tough on asshole editors.
Indeed, when you look at the rest of the six Arbitrators who got elected most recently, there isn't a single one who has a history of going soft on assholes, except Courcelles, the only one who has previously sat on an Eric case, and he is hopefully not going to participate because he is travelling and thus won't have the time to do a proper job of assessing the evidence. If he does try to vote, you'll know why.
Ched is an Administrator who quit Wikipedia long ago, because he didn't like the way people kept expecting him to block, rather than defend, his asshole mates, chiefly Eric. He came crawling back recently when it became clear it's actually not a firing offence to go to extreme lengths to abuse your tools to defend assholery.
You can almost guarantee he is planning to pull a Floquenbeam, if Eric gets banned.
Re: Eric Corbett
Another old favourite from Eric's enablers. The dispute at Moors murders is settling down, so there is nothing to Arbitrators, or so they claim.
But to people paying attention, people who understand the Committee's role is to look at long term disruption, there obviously is something to get to the bottom of.
* how come these disputes seem to only ever calm down when Eric is banned, or otherwise leaves after a massive drama laden tantrum?
* how much community time is being wasted on this fairly regular pattern of destructive interactions and their attempted management?
GoldenRing has just turned up claiming everything's cool, the community is handling things, because he blocked Eric for seventy two hours, and nobody gave him shit for it.
Again, for those not having recently suffered a lobotomy, there are things here which need to be investigated.
* if the sanctions work, why was there still so much drama and dispute over what is otherwise a pretty routine block when applied to why other editor?
* why did Eric even need to be blocked for 72 hours, so recently after a one month block?
* why are you, an Administrator, ignoring the rather obvious fact that Eric has continued to be incivil even after your 72 hour block for incivility? What purpose did this short block that was supposedly by the book, really achieve? Other than drama.
* why was there so little complaint from Eric's anal rimmers about a 72 hour block? Is it because they understand it was an incredibly lenient reaction, and if all things were being equal, he'd be getting indef blocks for this stuff by now, and his enablers are therefore happy to settle for short and easily ignored blocks, knowing as they do that Eric would not appeal an indefinite block, and so the Precious One would be lost forever.
But to people paying attention, people who understand the Committee's role is to look at long term disruption, there obviously is something to get to the bottom of.
* how come these disputes seem to only ever calm down when Eric is banned, or otherwise leaves after a massive drama laden tantrum?
* how much community time is being wasted on this fairly regular pattern of destructive interactions and their attempted management?
GoldenRing has just turned up claiming everything's cool, the community is handling things, because he blocked Eric for seventy two hours, and nobody gave him shit for it.
Again, for those not having recently suffered a lobotomy, there are things here which need to be investigated.
* if the sanctions work, why was there still so much drama and dispute over what is otherwise a pretty routine block when applied to why other editor?
* why did Eric even need to be blocked for 72 hours, so recently after a one month block?
* why are you, an Administrator, ignoring the rather obvious fact that Eric has continued to be incivil even after your 72 hour block for incivility? What purpose did this short block that was supposedly by the book, really achieve? Other than drama.
* why was there so little complaint from Eric's anal rimmers about a 72 hour block? Is it because they understand it was an incredibly lenient reaction, and if all things were being equal, he'd be getting indef blocks for this stuff by now, and his enablers are therefore happy to settle for short and easily ignored blocks, knowing as they do that Eric would not appeal an indefinite block, and so the Precious One would be lost forever.
Re: Eric Corbett
With yet another Arbitrator having resigned, the already quite serious quorum issue, has only got worse. So much so, it should really be sending Eric's enablers into blind panic. They always reflexively claim there should be no case, but perhaps they need to be doing something that reflects the serious risk their boy now faces?
Perhaps things will reach the required temperature if I remind people that if the case is accepted, there is still time for a full case to be held and completed before newly elected Arbitrators can arrive to stack the decks, and with Worm already recused, that leaves only seven Arbitrators to hear that case. Six if the laughable claim that GorillaWarfare should recuse succeeds, although I'm sure it won't.
To put that another way, if just four Arbitrators decide the condition of wit's end has been reached, Eric is fucking gone. Done. Toast.
More importantly, looking at those seven.....
* AGK (talk · contribs)
* GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs)
* Joe Roe (talk · contribs)
* KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
* Mkdw (talk · contribs)
* Opabinia regalis
* Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)
....you can only really say Opabina is fully supportive of Eric, and even she has been wavering recently as she surely realizes how ridiculous she sounds, and how big the lies she keeps having to tell to back up her votes are becoming. Gonna be interesting to see what she says, since it is pretty obvious she will be declining.
Worth noting that this seven is unusual in that it has a majority of women, and if anything, the three men are pretty intolerant of the idea Wikipedia should be an asshole friendly place.
With the spectre of Fram hanging over them, and the fact that in the press at least, it is widely believed Eric is a misogynist, and even if he isn't, he's an old white dude with rather traditional values regarding diversity and respect, and has repeatedly either denied the gender gap among editors even exists, or if it does, denied it is even a problem, well, it becomes pretty clear that his future is very much under serious threat without the need for any ridiculous claims of conspiracy or injustice to be true. And if his enablers start screaming about a Feminist cabal, well, they really will have lost what credibility they ever had among the neutrals. It hasn't stopped them before.
If accepted, then more than it has ever been the case previously, it's going to take some very brave Arbitrators to stand up and say he deserves a fiftieth second chance, or more accurately, they need to keep bending the rules just to retain the services of this one asshole. And if so, this won't really look like the decision of a Committee, certainly not if the outcome is not unanimous. It could the greatest ever example of super-voting since, well, that time Primefac downgraded civility from a Pillar to a secondary concern, in the context of RfA.
As ever, the people who most benefit from declining an Eric Corbett case request, will be the Arbitrators themselves. But the benefits will surely be short term, since it is already suspected one of the reasons they dropped the ball with Fram was this exact sort of institutional cowardice, if not a local institutional desire to completely ignore that Civility is still a core value.
Perhaps things will reach the required temperature if I remind people that if the case is accepted, there is still time for a full case to be held and completed before newly elected Arbitrators can arrive to stack the decks, and with Worm already recused, that leaves only seven Arbitrators to hear that case. Six if the laughable claim that GorillaWarfare should recuse succeeds, although I'm sure it won't.
To put that another way, if just four Arbitrators decide the condition of wit's end has been reached, Eric is fucking gone. Done. Toast.
More importantly, looking at those seven.....
* AGK (talk · contribs)
* GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs)
* Joe Roe (talk · contribs)
* KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
* Mkdw (talk · contribs)
* Opabinia regalis
* Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)
....you can only really say Opabina is fully supportive of Eric, and even she has been wavering recently as she surely realizes how ridiculous she sounds, and how big the lies she keeps having to tell to back up her votes are becoming. Gonna be interesting to see what she says, since it is pretty obvious she will be declining.
Worth noting that this seven is unusual in that it has a majority of women, and if anything, the three men are pretty intolerant of the idea Wikipedia should be an asshole friendly place.
With the spectre of Fram hanging over them, and the fact that in the press at least, it is widely believed Eric is a misogynist, and even if he isn't, he's an old white dude with rather traditional values regarding diversity and respect, and has repeatedly either denied the gender gap among editors even exists, or if it does, denied it is even a problem, well, it becomes pretty clear that his future is very much under serious threat without the need for any ridiculous claims of conspiracy or injustice to be true. And if his enablers start screaming about a Feminist cabal, well, they really will have lost what credibility they ever had among the neutrals. It hasn't stopped them before.
If accepted, then more than it has ever been the case previously, it's going to take some very brave Arbitrators to stand up and say he deserves a fiftieth second chance, or more accurately, they need to keep bending the rules just to retain the services of this one asshole. And if so, this won't really look like the decision of a Committee, certainly not if the outcome is not unanimous. It could the greatest ever example of super-voting since, well, that time Primefac downgraded civility from a Pillar to a secondary concern, in the context of RfA.
As ever, the people who most benefit from declining an Eric Corbett case request, will be the Arbitrators themselves. But the benefits will surely be short term, since it is already suspected one of the reasons they dropped the ball with Fram was this exact sort of institutional cowardice, if not a local institutional desire to completely ignore that Civility is still a core value.