Eric Corbett

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:01 pm

Gee, someone sure does want their last drop of sympathy......
I just felt I wanted to say that Ealdgyth is quite right in suggesting that the renaming nonsense at the SSEM was a significant contributory factory in my decision to stop editing Wikipedia when I did, but there were others, as Iridescent has said. I won't bore anyone with a long list - and I do have a long list - but Iridiscent's right, the target on my back was becoming a little too burdensome. It wasn't just my own personal frustrations though, I was seeing long-term collaborators such as ParrotofDoom, Sagaciousphil and many others getting worn down and leaving, and the place began to feel a little bit lonely. I won't ever be editing Wikipedia again, but what's the loss of just another unit of work? After all, the received wisdom is that we're all free to edit, we're all equally competent to edit, and anything I say is just wrong anyway. Eric Corbett 15:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
On behalf of all the people who are actually blocked from editing Wikipedia as opposed to simply being disillusioned, especially those who suffered far worse levels of injustice than your hypocritical little ass wants to recollect from your own sad tale of woe, go fuck yourself.

It is surely not possible to find a more self-pitying and self-absorbed Wikipedia editor than this prick.....and that is saying something, because the place is a magnet for selfish pricks. I love how he even mentions the departure of his friends in purely selfish terms. It made him feel lonely.

This is how the world is supposed to work, you moron. Nasty viscous people who have absolutely no capacity or even willingness to view their behaviour from the perspective of other people, or established societal norms, they're meant to end up bitter and alone. This was always going to be how your story ended, Eric, as people were telling you many years ago. You should have listened, instead of spitting bile in their face.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:47 pm

But wasn't that the beginnings of Wikipedia, as a feeder project for a real encyclopedia, Larry Sanger's original idea?

An idea that was quickly abandoned because in Jimmy Wales' world quantity always trumps quality?
The idea that Wikipedia would merely be a feeder for an expert authored encyclopedia was quickly abandoned, sure, but anyone who is actually interested in what Jimmy Wales thinks of the quality over quantity debate, you need only look.

Here's what Jimmy had to say when opening Wikimania 2006.....

https://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wik ... transcript)
But my overall point is, although we've always had this overall goal that we should be Britannica or better quality, we all know we're not there yet. We aren't as good as Britannica... yet. And so, I think that one of the things that we can is that, in the coming years, I think one of the themes is going to be, and a big theme for me in the coming year, is a turn towards quality.......We can no longer feel satisfied and happy when we see those numbers going up. When you go from 1.2 million articles to 1.8 million articles, what did you add? Well, you added a lot of interesting stuff, to be sure, a lot of Long Tail stuff that other encyclopedias aren't going to cover. But I think we also need to be very interested in focusing our attention on improving the quality of the central core topics, and finding ways to make those things better.
We all know what happened next.

Still, it is hardly a surprise that Eric knows NOTHING about something he seeks to criticise. Ignorant little fuck.

Truth is, Jimmy's world is the same one it has always been since he began to give up control over Wikipedia - he expresses what he hopes Wikipedia can be, and the Wikipedians he entrusted to make his vision reality, proceed to disappoint him. So much so, his last vestiges of power were not so much given up, as snatched from him by the ungrateful spawn, lest he change his mind.

Eric could have played his part if he wanted to. He didn't want to. Instead he became the perfect example of the sort of Wikipedian who would guarantee, by their sheer level of toxicity, that the site never remotely reached this goal, through simple lack of sufficient number or quality of editors. His singular meagre contributions of course never got them anywhere near that goal, even though he was often laughingly referred to by his sycophants as the single most important editor Wikipedia ever had.

Quite why Jimmy is to blame for Eric's lack of character/vision, his sheer unwillingness to actually be a Wikipedian, but nonetheless stick around and ruin it for everyone else, is beyond me.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by Graaf Statler » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:49 pm

Remember, an encyclopedia is not a data dump. The word "sum" has a purpose in that statement... an encyclopedia is not "all human knowledge" it is the "sum" of all human knowledge. It is specifically delimited for very good reasons." (Jimbo Wales, 4 August 2008)


You are right that it is not the goal of Wikipedia to include all human knowledge - the key phrase usually overlooked in this criticism is "the sum". It is the goal of Wikipedia to include the sum of all human knowledge." (Jimbo Wales, 31 January 2011


Definitely my meaning is "summary". I wouldn't say "gist" as that word tends connote something about vagueness. But Wikipedia literally can't contain all knowledge for a number of reasons. And an encyclopedia is not, for example, a text book. And our entry on "China" for example really shouldn't be 10,000 pages long. It should provide a summary of what is known, and refer people to other sources to dig deeper. Where to stop is of course a very interesting question subject to thoughtful discussion - and of course Wikipedia can be (and is) much more comprehensive than traditional encyclopedias." (Jimbo Wales, 3 July 2015 )


It is course easy to blame Jimmy of everything, but that is not fair. For sure Jimmy did stupide things, something he admit himself. But the Wikipedians made the tremendous chaos, and not Jimmy.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:51 am

Opinions are not facts.
Those who can't, teach.

What a stupid motherfucker this guy really is. Acting like we DON'T SEE WHAT HE SAYS AND REMEMBER IT.

Dumbass.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:50 pm

It’ a rather meaningless figure though, a bit like saying only 0.0008% of the cells in my body are cancerous, so I’m perfectly OK.
Someone has cancer on the brain. Not literally. Well, not that we know of, but if so, enjoy your last few weeks Eric......tell Satan we were asking after him. :twisted:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:42 am

I'm just surprised that it took him so long to work that out.
Says the guy who took how long to figure out Wikipedia wasn't for him?

And it we take Dr. Blofeld at his word that this was his first attempt at paid editing, it seems to have taken him all of two days to figure out disclosure is a bad idea. Which certainly eclipses the learning curve of the ferret fucker by a factor of a billion.

Nice to see Black Kite is on the same page as his protectee Eric about the uselessness of the paid editor declaration rules.....no surprise there. Corruption is corruption, after all.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:12 am

Eric is slowing getting back on that horse. Sad little addict that he is.

Thinking back, the pattern is a familiar one. He returns to correct the record of his departure, then remind people what he used to do, then spit bile at his former enemies, then correct the record about who he called a cunt and why, and then try to derail someone who is trying to get WP:CIVIL treated as a policy again.

These are of course very odd things to be doing for someone who has made the sort of comments he has made as a supposed critic on the nature of Wikipedia and his departure from it.

But that's just Eric Corbett. He's never been able to maintain a consistent narrative, he's never been able to stick to a principle, he's never been honest or trustworthy. All while he claims to be an expert in human behaviour, and casts himself as better than those who would dare to criticise him.

What is this behaviour Eric, if not typical of all the self-serving cowardly Wikipedians who can't deal with their truth being told regarding who they are and what they do?

You'll have to face your demons some time Eric. If you ever hope to rest in peace. No rest for the wicked. :twisted:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:38 pm

Eric_Corbett wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:I find it incomprehensible that people ever believed that people would be acting like reasonable adults on the internet.
Or indeed anywhere else in life. Things just don't work like that.
Such a classic Eric Corbett moment. He is incapable of even recognising there are places in the real world where people interact as reasonable adults. No surprise from the guy who thinks fuck off you cunt is a phrase seen in all walks of British life, with zero consequences for the utterer.

The people who created Wikipedia had this crazy idea - it wasn't going to be just like the rest of the internet. They created a thing called the civility expectation. It is broadly analogous to ensuring Wikipedia interactions are what you would expect in a professional environment, and it was enforceable through a very simple system of everybody keeping a check on each other, with Administrators empowered to ensure those who do not accept this standard, as identified by the community, are politely and respectfully, shown the door.

If course, it didn't work because of people like Eric Corbett, and those who enabled him to be everything he could be. And so it all went to shit, and he has left because he didn't ruin it nearly as badly as he wanted to. Was this a problem endemic to the internet? Obviously not. Go to mumsnet and try to act the way Eric did.

Wikipedia failed in this goal, because they let people like Eric get away with it. They signed a deal with the devil, looking the other way for otherwise productive users, and the devil is extracting the full terms of the bargain as we speak. Wikipedia is a horrible, evil, place, populated by horrible, evil people.

Jimmy Wales saw the threat early on and tried to redress the balance, and they told him to mind his own fucking business. Jimmy has no real reason to care that Eric Corbett destroyed Wikipedia. And Eric is fucking furious that his sterling efforts and the pox-ridden result, don't keep him awake at night. Jimmy has a life, he has other things to interest him. The evil weasel clearly does not. Hence why he spent nearly a decade trying to make it a place he felt comfortable in. A toxic shit hole.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:10 am

I don't object to arbitrators doing nothing. At least that way they're not doing any harm.
The ferret fucker's definition of harm, is of course when they do stuff like this......
Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
What a bunch of evil bastards they really are.

The ferret fucker is of course incapable of adhering to this simple condition, which is merely a restatement of the basic policy he agreed to follow by voluntarily being a Wikipedian (there's evidently no hope of anyone on Wikipedia really understanding this was what was meant by the infamous 'not a Wikipedian' comment by an Arbitrator deliberating in the Eric Corbett problem).
ArbCom doesn't do any arbitration, and never has in my experience. So for it to do something else instead would be a kind of fraud, therefore best it does nothing.
A fraud? Really? As much of a fraud as calling the likes of you an editor of that "encyclopedia"?

This guy is pricless. Spends over ten years on Wikipedia, finally realises it isn't for him, and rocks up at a supposed critic forum to tell people what they have known for over ten years. Wikipedia has its own very fucked up glossary, which is chock full of words that mean one thing in the real world, but which don't mean that in Wikipedia usage. It doubt it bothered him before, indeed I don't doubt he exploited the confusion it sows in newbies just as enthusiastically as any other Wikipedia scumbag does as they busy themselves with the important task of OWNing the shit out of their territory.

And of course, given the ferret fucker's loudly and repeated position - ArbCom can go fuck themselves if they think he is going to lower himself to participating in their show trials, they can forget it, it seems unlikely this hostile reaction to a community accepted process of dispute resolution would have been markedly different had someone framed it as his chance to participate in arbitration in the real sense of the word.

Eric wanted no part of any process under the purview of ArbCom for one very simple reason - they carry authority. He needn't have worried, as in his trailblazing style, the open defiance of many an Administrator to defy ArbCom's authority to protect the ferret fucker from the consequences of his own actions, marked the beginning of the end for that body.

It is remarkable when you think about it, just how many aspects of Wikipedia the ferret fucker has had a big hand in destroying. I have sometimes seen people say that those of us who wish to see Wikipedia destroyed, should celebrate the achievements of people like the ferret fucker, who have done such stellar service in that regard.

These people are misguided at best, and they certainly do not speak for me. Anyone who is OK with what the ferret fucker got away with for over a decade, is simply showing the have zero respect for their fellow humans. Contrary to Wikipedia mythology, at least half of his victims were entirely innocent, duped by the false promises given out by the cult. Others were baited into their own crimes against him, and yet funnily enough, never received the mitigation Wikipedia so readily offered the ferret fucker.

Someone should remind the ferret fucker that arbitration in the real world sense of the term, is a two way street, and he has never liked it when other people get their fair chance to say what their experience of interacting with him was really like. He positively hates the truth. Like all scumbags.

That is why you will never see the ferret fucker here, correcting or disputing anything said. He prefers the company of people who readily buy into his mythological history of his time there, his perpetual victimhood, his paradoxical positions, and his endless stream of utterly self-serving bullshit. He loved Wikipedia, because there's few places in the real world where that is tolerated for over a decade, and is mourned when it is finally gone. He would have made a fine US President.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Eric Corbett

Post by Dysklyver » Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:16 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric_Corbett

Eric the "retired" editor sure seems to be making a lot of edits to wind up Fred Bauder on the Arbcom election question page.

:roll:

Post Reply