View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:45 pm




Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Eric Corbett 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Quote:
I could think of a good few ways I'd likely refer to GorillaWarfare, all to do with her attitude not her sex.
Oh goody, he's winding up for another genderless usage of the c-word. :D
Quote:
I don't appreciate the way she behaved while on ArbCom, and not just because she tried to vote me out the house more than once. That's much more worthy of discussion than why someone of whatever age or gender might have referred to her by her real name, shock horror!
Really? We're to just gonna pretend like there wasn't ten times more discussion of how the mean girl Gorilla Warfare was mean to little old Eric, both on and off Wik?

You live in a fantasy world Eric.

I love it. This is Eric I'm so not a mysogynist Corbett, complaining about the behaviour of a woman editor of Wikipedia for the sole reason she tried to use the authority of her position in an entirely legitimate fashion, to correct his behaviour. Something countless different male Wikipedians have done, several using wholly illegitimate methods.

Despite her getting far more negative feedback and thus damage to her Wikipedia reputation for merely trying to do the right thing than any male editor has ever received who did the same to him, including specifically endorsing GW's actions, for some strange reason, it's her so called crimes that Eric is choosing to remember. Indeed, this is the case for a lot of male Wikipedians, who seem particularly preoccupied with GW's role in what was a long and storied tragedy, with a cast of hundreds of critics, mostly male.

It's not an opportunist attack either, plenty of his past male detractors are members of Wikipediocracy. Totally outnumbered by the Wikipedia Administrator bros who liked to do him a favour, of course. Credit to GW for even wanting to be in that sort of hostile environment.


Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Quote:
I haven't read, and don't intend to read, anything Crowsnest says about anything
Don't flatter yourself that what I write about you is for your benefit, you daft fucker. I wrote about you even when I thought you were dead, which you so disappointingly quashed as a rumour, so that might help you understand the point of the exercise.
Quote:
but I can't say I'm surprised that he attempts to draw a comparison between me and Jytdog, as he's become infatuated with me.
Say what now? I thought you prided yourself on use of the language? How does it follow that my supposed infatuation with you (is a virologist infatuated by herpes samples?) means I would make that comparison? Do you imagine I am mental, and compare everything wrong with Wikipedia to you? That would be mad. Although very characteristic of your victim complex. A bit like blaming all your troubles with Wikipedia on American teenage admins. Now that's mad. Not infatuation, quite the opposite emotion, but just as irrational.

I won't be waiting for an answer. Not because you claim to ignore me, but because you ignore everything that makes you look like a prat. I know my ferret fucker.


Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Meanwhile, the ferret fucker's lack of any sense of irony is in full swing. Eric's obsession with Jmmy Wales is doing a fine job of derailing any and all threads on Wikipediocracy......
ferret_fucker wrote:
dim_bulb wrote:
ferret_fucker wrote:
You missed out the most toxic user of all, Jimbo Wales.
As a user, he does so little that he can scarcely be described as toxic. That's not to endorse anything he does outside editing.
I disagree, mainly because of his talk page.
Believe it or not, I found this sad little exchange in a thread where the good people of Wikipediocracy are attempting to discuss the recent departures of two Administrators, Spartaz and RandyKitty. A worthwhile topic, one that has fuck all to do with Jimmy Wales.

It's quite sad that Eric is using his butthurt at one single infamous exchange at Jimbotalk, to now pass himself off as a critic of Wikipedia. Serious critics had diagnosed that as an issue years ago, back when Eric was still a busy little addict. And they sure as shit could provide more examples of it than are stored in Eric's tiny little self-obsessed ferret brain.

Not that providing examples is ever part of what the ferret fucker does. He's a lazy little shit at the best of times, but he no doubt also recognises people who don't know him might mistake this sort of puke for an informed comment based on a wealth of data.

Eric, you're a fraud. A chicken hearted little fraud. You're so lucky the good people of Wikipediocracy like protecting and mothering chicken hearted little frauds. You and Kumioko make a great team, talking absolute butthurt shite all day long, infesting and infecting every single thread with your scat. The Wikipedians are no doubt loving it, because it has such a discrediting and damaging effect on serious criticism.


Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Quote:
It seems fairly clear that the wiki model doesn't really work for encyclopedic content

:lol: :shock: :? :roll:
CrowsNest wrote:
Total edits (not including sock-puppets): 190,930

That total by itself puts him at around 150 in the all-time list of Wikipedians by edit count. It's insane when you realise he didn't run a bot and wasn't involved in any activity where you can rack up lots of edits with little thought.
Slow learner? Absolutely fucking retarded? Or is he just saying shit he hasn't really thought about.

Whatever the cause of dung like this dropping out of his brain and into that forum, he is a fake critic, that's for damn sure.

Still, Jake is so desperate for posters, he'll take anybody. Anybody except serious critics.


Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:14 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
It's just a daily dose of dumbassery from this guy.....
Quote:
I see that The Grauniad's proof reading hasn't improved.
I think their proof reading can actually spot which Guardian is being referred to (the clue was in the link provided - Guardian Nigeria).


Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:22 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
:lol:
Quote:
From a philosophical perspective, do you believe that it's possible to know something that isn't true?
If it wasn't, then it would be kind of hard for Eric to even exist in this Universe, philosophically speaking.....not that the ferret fucker is some kind of transdimensional being.

Once you realise Eric is more than capable of holding things to be true which he cannot possible be unaware are false, you really do get to the heart of his reality.

Not crazy. Just that particular kind of asshole. It isn't an accident that Eric has never apologised, never even really admitted fault, save a couple of words when it seemed like there was literally no other option. He was living in a post-truth world before anyone else even knew that was possible. A pioneer of sorts. Like patient zero.


Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
:roll:
Quote:
I'm struggling with the idea that articles about dead pets is in some way "useful for this world", but of course I wouldn't deny anyone the right to produce one, nor criticise them for having done so, just not something I'm interested in doing myself.

Rightly or wrongly I do believe in some of Wikipedia's core values, I just think that their implementation leaves much to be desired. I don't, on the other hand, have much in common with whatever the ideals of Everipedia might be, so you won't be seeing me there any time soon.
Their goal is a better implementation of Wikipedia, dumbass.

Wikipedia: you can write about dead pets if they are notable (cue endless fights about what that means and how to measure it)

Everipedia: you can write about dead pets if you can source it, and you will get paid for doing so

Both sites can and will have articles on dead pets, so if one of the core value he agrees with is giving a person their right to do it if it is seen as a useful activity to them and can convince enough of his fellow editors it is too (which is all these silly notability debates are, after all - the idea it is objective is easily debunked), then which of the two sites is implementing that vision better?

If Eric has a better idea how to implement Wikipedia in a way that prevents people adding information he doesn't think is useful to the world, such as excluding articles about dead pets, I've never seen it. Other than making him King of course. The silly fucker sure as shit has no answer to the problem of how to ensure notability is measured objectively and definitively. His characteristic arrogance and argument from assertion, a quality shared by so many of Wikipedia's so called content creators, is a big part of that problem.

And who is he kidding? If he could immortalise his dead ferrets as easily as people can immortalise other dead animals on Wikipedia, you know he's down for that. What else is he gonna do in his retirement? Go fishing?


Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Quote:
I became so exasperated with the way things work, or don't work, on Wikipedia that I finally decided to take Jimbo's advice and fuck off.
Literally years passed between Jimmy making his views known, and him eventually leaving. Yet he still mentions it like it's remotely relevant. Which it was, in the sense his deep seated need to piss Jimmy off being the reason he stayed for so long afterwards. Plenty of other people told him to fuck off, before and after Jimmy, yet he never remembers those.

He's certainly got some daddy issues has our Eric.


Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Eric maded a thread! :o :shock: :? :ugeek:

As befits his stature as a collosus of philosophy, it addresses the Big Picture. Namely, why the fuck are are you critics so worked up? What's your deal?
Quote:
There was a time when I believed that Wikipedia was a worthwhile endeavour, but it has so many problems that that wouldn't be my view today. Nevertheless I find that I really don't care much whether it lives or dies, although I'm aware that others are happy to do whatever they can to hasten its demise.

So I'm wondering whether Wikipedia generates such strong feelings among some people because of its style of governance rather than what it actually is - a large repository of largely unreliable information. Is it because editors are treated as if they're untrustworthy children allowed only reluctantly to carry out certain unglamorous tasks such as writing articles, or is it deeper than that? Is it perhaps to do with the way in which former cult members are shunned?

Or perhaps there's another reason altogether. Different people will claim to have different motivations, but there must surely be some unifying theme.
Firstly, let's deal with the elephant in the room. Quite a few people, myself included, get worked up over Wikipedia partly because of enduring presence of people like Eric. The toxic scum. The unblockables. The exact people who should not be encountered in the so called Wikipedia community, indeed who should be left in no doubt they are not welcome, if it worked as advertised. It does not work. So much so, what Eric calls my obsession, has lasted for years. I really did want him to be dead as was rumoured, just so I didn't have to keep exposing his sham existence. It's tiring work. Tedious work. But sadly necessary work.

Now, to the analysis bus :!:
Quote:
There was a time when I believed that Wikipedia was a worthwhile endeavour, but it has so many problems that that wouldn't be my view today.
Took you long enough, eh? Sadly, it wasn't because he's a slow learner, and arguably not even because he was addicted. He's just that kind of person. Stubborn. Egotistical. Delusional. Selfish.
Quote:
Nevertheless I find that I really don't care much whether it lives or dies,
Bullshit. For a start, he clearly wants Jimmy to come to serious harm. But that alone doesn't adequately explain 300 posts in 50 days to Wikipediocracy. Nobody is ever that bored.
Quote:
although I'm aware that others are happy to do whatever they can to hasten its demise.
Not sure how he got that impression from Wikipediocracy, they're more of the belief that the minor reform here, a personnel change there, and Wikipedia will be fixed. For true faith HTD, you gotta go elsewhere. Wait, you don't think he secretly reads our forum without telling us? *swoon*
Quote:
So I'm wondering whether Wikipedia generates such strong feelings among some people because of its style of governance rather than what it actually is - a large repository of largely unreliable information.
Why can't it be both? And surely, the former is at least partly responsible for the latter? And let's have it right. Per their own disclaimer, 100% of Wikipedia is to be treated as if it is unreliable information.
Quote:
Is it because editors are treated as if they're untrustworthy children allowed only reluctantly to carry out certain unglamorous tasks such as writing articles, or is it deeper than that?
Well, it took a while, but we are finally onto the real reason Eric created the thread. Sympathy. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like one. If you want to be trusted, stop lying.
Quote:
Is it perhaps to do with the way in which former cult members are shunned?
What a surprise. The guy who spent a decade as a Wikipedian, is still more than happy to trot out the cult line - Critics? What critics? They're all just embittered former editors! It's rather laughable if Eric is implying here that he is a shunned former cult member. And if he isn't, he should be more diplomatic, and not rub everyone else's nose in the fact he left of his own accord.
Quote:
Or perhaps there's another reason altogether.
Come off it Eric. You're not the kind of guy who has an open mind, you already have what you think is the answer, just drop the charade this thread was a solicitation of alternative views.
Quote:
Different people will claim to have different motivations, but there must surely be some unifying theme.
Based on what? Proper critics already know people hate Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. You're not so dumb you haven't figured that out already. Granted, your face doesn't really fit at Wikipediocracy if you have certain views, but their imposition of a narrative others must follow or be ritually humiliated, is why we are now graced with multiple different critic sites.

Hope this helps everybody caught up in this enduring farce that Eric is somehow now a Wikipedia critic, rather than the guy he has always been, just no longer editing Wikipedia (or so the proven sock-master claims anyway).


Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1096
Reply with quote
Quote:
Where do you get your misinformation from? I have never considered myself to be a Wikipedian, a term I always found slightly belittling, and the only socks I have are polyester/cotton mixes.
Jake wrote:
That's true; Mr. Corbett here has been accused of a lot of things, but "sock-puppeteer" has never been one of them.
Unsurprising to see Eric lying. No surprise to see Jake standing behind that lie.

He's not lying when he says he never considered himself to be a Wikipedian. That's why he was such a problem, such a source of conflict and division. A Wikipedian is merely someone who commits to the idea that they are there out of pure altruism, to build a free encyclopedia through being collegiate and respectful. No assholes allowed.

Indeed, Eric was once famously referred to as "Not a Wikipedian". And boy did his enablers get mad. Really fucking mad. How dare they tell the truth about poor little Eric? It even spawned this sad little monument......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... edirect=no

Look at that list. What a right bunch of assholes, eh? Many since banned for being an asshole, but sadly not enough.

That's the thing about being a supporter of Eric Corbett. Many of them are so thick, they don't even know the real person they're defending. Eric agrees with the statement that he's not a Wikipedian. And for mostly the same reasons it was said at the time (he doesn't accept WP:CIVIL and doesn't think all editors deserve equal treatment).

Eric is not a Wikipedian. He is a Wikipedia sock-puppeteer though. People who deny these basic truths, they're not good people. They're not Wikipedia critics.


Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.