This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Montanabw: have you not had the memo yet? Wikipedia is no longer about content. It's about politics and honour and moral crusades, all based on a fairly narrow US definition. The more people like the GGTF regulars draw attention to their "cause" in ways like this, the more people are going to kick back against it and the more outright idiots we will attract who are just here to fight a la Gamergate. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's just more of the usual bloody nonsense. The thudding sound in the background is my head meeting my desk, repeatedly. Comments such as "As expected, Corbett's fanclub has arrived to extol his virtues" make me particularly angry: I cannot with civility say what I think of this comment and its underlying attitude. Eric, I hope you have a nice break, and feel like doing some editing when you come back. Please. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir's comment that you are a "bald faced liar" (amended from liars when she also directed that personal attack against Casliber) is far worse and more blockable than your one comment foray into that venue, as you surely know.--MONGO13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Another victory for the passive-aggressive bullies. And certain people have the audacity to wonder why quality continues to decline here... Intothatdarkness14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't blame us Americans, Sitush, it's only a subset of drama-mongering trolls that do this. And I have to say that EC must have wanted a vacay, else why go over there and poke the bear? ;-) It was either a brain fart or a deliberate bit of mischief - or maybe a combo of both? Hey Eric- drop us all a postcard from the Bahamas or wherever you are spending your week! LOL! Montanabw(talk)18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair cop or not, the AE request is bullshit and the block is overblown. Evergreen could have just deleted and left Eric a note--but no, let's run to mommy. This atmosphere, in which we can't even fucking talk but resort to blocks (and to whining to ArbCom), is counterproductive. Speaking of ArbCom, I should go see if the WMF has had to buy additional server space for Lightbreather's comments. Drmies (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, between this account and my previous Malleus account - which had made too many edits to be renamed - I've made almost 175,000 edits, created 143 new articles, been credited with 43 FAs and have done 595 GA reviews. And this is how I get treated. Is this really the way forward? Surely an honestly run project would want more editors like me, not fewer? EricCorbett19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WP thinks it can do without us, but in truth it can't. Perhaps WP ought to be waking up to the possibility that we can do without it? EricCorbett22:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You still think that "WP thinks"? - while I pointed out that expecting fairness and logic from AE is expecting too much. Disillusioned is a good thing ;) - we say "enttäuscht" which implies the loss of Täuschung = deception, also good, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:AE often does more harm than good. There's a reason I never avail myself of it to enforce WP:ARBATC, no matter how bad the transgression. I think the sensible course of community action is to critically review, and restrain, WP:ARBCOM's ability to involve itself in purely WP-internal matters. ArbCom and AE are very useful for putting a sharp end to nasty behavior resulting from POV-pushing wars over content. These are frequent, often involve demonstrable bad faith on one or more sides, and generally devolve to an abuse of the encyclopedia to push false or skewed information. While ArbCom can't rule on content matters directly, it ropes in disruptive holy wars that have a negative effect on WP as a public resource and "the encyclopedia anybody can edit". See WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2, to pick one example (inveterate ethnocentric WP:GREATWRONGS crap between pro- and anti-Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Kurd[istan] editors). The problem arises when ArbCom and its mercenary band of AE enforcers (some of whom do little but play wiki-cop) start interfering in how WP self-governs, and enjoining people from, or punishing them for, heated participation in WP-internal decision-making, like debating policies and guidelines, or wikiproject matters. This has been spiraling out of control for several years now, and is costing us valuable contributors. AE disproportionately enforces against certain sides of these debates. We don't need ArbCom and AE to regulate editorial and inter-editor behavior on wikiproject and policy talk pages. WP:ANI is perfectly adequate for this. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this was necessary or well-advised, especially given the lag between your ANI (which is what I assume you're referring to, since you don't link to a specific discussion at ANI) and your decision to place this notice here. Intothatdarkness13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's only fulfilling an issue I pressed him on concerning why he notified Coffee who he mentioned in one of his responses, yet did not mention Eric, even though he used the argument that he had to inform people who were referred to in AN/I discussions. The smart thing to have done would have been to withdraw the notice to Coffee, which he could have done. However, I admit I stressed the continued presence of the notice to Coffee and the lack of a notice to Eric. I consider, and in fact, I wrote, that neither need have been notified (because KK87 shouldn't have tried to bring Coffee into the discussion about KK87's behaviour.) DDStretch (talk)13:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. What I found concerning was the lag between their notice to Coffee and the one to Eric. I've also never been a fan of notifications like this going to people who are unable to respond. Intothatdarkness14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You have been blocked for two weeks and your ability to edit this talk page removed due to this comment which is a violation of your GGTF TBAN and IBAN from Lightbreather. The post is from a mailing list which has been set up to discuss the "gender disparity among Wikipedians" and you are topic banned from that and "any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed" (quotes from your TBAN), as the post concerns Lightbreather you also have breached the IBAN (dot point three from WP:IBAN). As you don't have access to your talk page access can appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, can't you see the irony, Callanecc? You've just added to it. I despair, I really do. And if someone says something there, where Eric has no chance of reply, then ArbCom cannot enforce any WP sanction that may be enforceable here. This is double-standards. - Sitush (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I used to participate in the LGBT and Gendergap mailing lists, but had to leave due to bullying and obnoxiousness. I caution anyone wishing to get involved in those important issues: those lists are echo chambers, promulgate sexism, and produce no discernible benefit. There are better ways to combat key issues.
Ah... man it was such an echo chamber. No idea of the context here (I am way too busy to do anything but bugfix articles and occasionally be an overzealous admin) but man... that takes me back to some painful discussions. Any dissenting voice was 'not making it a safe space'. :( --Errant(chat!)10:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc...this looks like excessive zeal on your part. I too was accused of excessive zeal when I adminned but each instance I was overzealous it was to deal with useless now long departed and or banned editors, not against prolific content contributors like Corbett. I urge you to reconsider this escalation of penalties...the sentences are not commensurate with the offense.--MONGO05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The editor, Rosiestep, who made the comment quoted above, is a highly productive content contributor and, as far as I know, avoids drama most of the time. She is so studious in avoiding drama that she may have been unaware of the context of the underlying conflicts. I am deliberately not pinging her. Please, everyone, consider dialing this down rather than escalating it. Thank you. This too shall pass. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately (but it doesn't really belong here) I assume in good faith that the quote was without irony in sincere fear (of people like me), - which is why I assumed the "toxic personality" title a while ago, following your example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll see Gerda's quote, and raise you "There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice". Callanecc, your first block was at the harsh end but within the bounds of reason. (Blocking may have clearly been against the spirit of the arbcom ruling in question, but he did break the letter of the law.) This second block was twelve hours after the comment in question was made, on one of the most-watched pages on the entire wiki, during which time no other person raised any concern about the comment. To be frank, this second block coming out of the blue is either going to make Eric look like the victim of an IRC conspiracy (if you were canvassed to impose the block), make you look like a vindictive crank searching for a pretext to exercise a grudge (if you acted unilaterally), or make you look like the stooge for cowards unwilling to dirty their hands themselves (if you were asked to perform the block behind-the-scenes by Arbcom or the WMF); extending the block for reasons as spurious as this increases the chance of getting it lifted altogether which is presumably not the effect you intended. – iridescent09:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be simpler for Eric to abide by his topic bans? It's not difficult not to read the Gendergap Wikipedia email list, must less post about it. In fact, I wouldn't have known about it if Eric hadn't included a link to it. LizRead!Talk!10:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if Nigel Farage had a volume knob and George Osborne had some common sense, but in life you have to work with what you're given, not what you'd like to have. A "Hey, Eric, can you cut it out and focus on Denbies FAC?" would have been okay. A block followed by a 4 page drama-fest ... isn't. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz, would you not get pissed off having to stand by while people were talking about you behind your back on a WMF list, in a situation where you have no right of reply there and if you mention it here you would be blocked? If so, you are living in some parallel universe. And that you did not know of the mailing list is simply astounding for an Arbcom clerk, even if perhaps a recently-appointed one. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Probably, but "don't read a site at which you know you're being discussed" is an easy piece of advice to give but not easy to stick to. (Why is it that whenever an Arbcom clerk's actions are challenged, the rest of them turn up? Since this is the first time you've ever posted on this page I presume it's not on your watchlist; you turning up out of nowhere is not doing the defence against the "IRC or clerks-l colluding to defend each other's actions" accusation much good.) – iridescent11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I expect everyone commenting here is being watched and probably talked about on IRC where ordinary souls can't see what's going on – which de facto makes this block a steaming pile of hypocritical shit. I think anyone who dismisses the opinions of others as coming from a "fanclub" is being far more offensive than anything I've seen Eric do. Lift the block and – well, I previously said "apologise", but now I think it's gone way beyond that. Nortonius (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm on IRC in the admins channel, and I haven't seen this block mentioned there at all. For starters, Callanecc is rarely on IRC at all. More than likely, it's being discussed on the private ArbCom / clerk mailing lists so that random editors and admins can't show up to comment. And, Gerda Arendt, I still think it's fairly likely that GovCom members ordered him to make these blocks, so, while he's not entirely absolved, it's not just him throwing weight around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am German and (perhaps extra-)sensitive to people taking orders without questioning them. I didn't say anything about Callanec, right? I said that I made a mistake which is human. I think, Eric, you also made a mistake (and said so). Why are we all not creating content instead of talking here where you, Eric, can't even respond? (I only made this - another - comment because I was pinged, - hopefully the last one. I want to prettify a few articles before TFA Sunday.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Same difference, for IRC substitute the "private ArbCom / clerk mailing lists", clearly this didn't come from nowhere; I'm still creating content. Nortonius (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
And this points out the problem with that whole "broadly construed" lump of feces they tack on to all sanctions. It may be twisted into anything desired to prove a point. As for the whole "fan club" thing...I've always found that offensive and a convenient shorthand dismissal of criticism. But that's what happens when you have an effective police state and absolute, almost unaccountable power concentrated in the hands of a few. Intothatdarkness14:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Eric: thank you for quoting me. I've got this page watchlisted now so I don't miss other gems.
People: I live and breathe writing content on Wikipedia. I avoid drama as (a) it doesn't interest me, and (b) it keeps me from writing content. I oppose silencing content writers. I oppose those who silence content writers by harassing them, on- or off-wiki. There are millions of people in the world who don't have the means to build this encyclopedia. So it falls on us, those who can, to give it our best. I'm going to be working on some mining in Africa articles this weekend; how about you? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Me? I'm working on Minnehaha Falls which may turn out to be my fourth GA and second DYK. Eric assisted me, put me under his wing so as to speak because that is how it felt for me, with the DYK and I am deeply grateful to him. He has helped me out other times as well, especially with help to maintain the integrity of the To Kill a Mockingbird article. As for all this bullshit, I know next to nothing about all of the sideshows and under currents of this place. If I understand the current situation correctly, editor Evergreen felt that she had to leave an off-wiki group because Eric had somehow made her feel unsafe, and Eric has been banned for two weeks...surely I don't understand what's going on--that doesn't make any sense. Could anyone please take a minute to expain to me what is going on? Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A fair cop reported to arbitrary enforcement that Eric had posted something on GGTF (see above, correctly notified), which Eric is restricted not to do, at all. It would have been a mistake even if he said there how wonderful that project is. No edit. Period. - Now what would you do if you had noticed that "transgression". It could have been ignored. Imagine! - The fair cop, however, even noticed and reported a second edit, which fixed the indenting for clarity. Clarity, imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The second one is because the linked text includes the word Lightbreather and is on the WMF-hosted gender gap mailing list. The irony that Eric was pointing out obviously didn't work for Callanecc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on GA #43 right now, I have got a nice book on Camberley and I hope I get a few hours spare to improve it to GA. In a similar vein, I'd like to get some more sources to find out about the Jolly Farmer as I'm regretting never bothering to step in the pub until it closed, and have been (somewhat in vain) waiting for it to reopen ever since. Oh, and I did promise Blofeld I'd do some work on Sunset Strip and I do try and be as good as my word. However, the real work this weekend is helping put up a few drywalls for a new recording studio, and play at a few music festivals. Have a good weekend, y'all. Eric, if the weather's nice, take a spin up Snake Pass and admire the view. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Female infanticide in India, although I'm struggling to work up the enthusiasm with all these events going on. Might be more a case of a journalist writing up "suicide in Manchester" at this rate (black humour - no need to report it as a genuine risk). - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for The Destroying Angel FAC to go through, which should be FA #31, and doing the groundwork to complete Victorian painting which if all goes well will meet Jimbo's holy grail of a core topic going from redlink to FAC. Normally on something like The Destroying Angel Eric would be among the first people I'd approach, as I know he takes an interest in Manchester topics, but thanks to your friends on the GGTF I can't do so because it shows a pair of exposed breasts, which could cause it to fall under "any process or discussion relating to gender disparity, broadly construed". I've also cleaned out the CSD backlog, given that all the people who ought to be doing it are kvetching at the Village Pump about how how little work admins do. – iridescent16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything as I mentioned up the page. The political gender-driven nonsense that Eric has been subjected to is the main reason why I have backed away and have little to no inclination to edit. On the plus side my garden is thriving, I've read more and I'm enjoying the company of real people sharing my other hobbies, not that I didn't before, but I don't care much for watching tv and enjoyed contributing and most certainly enjoy working with Eric. I've seen some spiteful actions in my time here, this is among the worst. J3Mrs (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
With all seriousness, somebody should give Sitush the bit; Indian articles get tagged as A7 all the time (example) and I generally punt on them as I haven't a clue if they're salvagable or not. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I will never get the bit - too many enemies, including those who frequent GGTF and the numerous Indian sockfarms etc. However, I've redirected the article that you link. The related bit of spam - Vinoba Manohar Foundation, which apparently runs the hospital - should be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, Sitush, I've thought about doing a RfA myself, I'd particularly love to be able to help at WP:RPP and to be able to help good folks with revdel. I've been told that my "enemies" would also come out of the woodwork after me if I did. I think Eric is also topic-banned from RfA, so I don't want to poke a hornet's nest here if the topic is verboten, but I do kind of wonder if the place is becoming an Animal Farm. ("four legs good, two legs bad!") Montanabw(talk)23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I know you're not bothered by this 2-week forced vacation you've been given, Eric. But, I hope you'll always appreciate the support you continue to get. PS- If only I had a strong support-base, too :( GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
An overlooked angle on the "RfA is broken" meme: This is not the first time that a candidate passes RfA w/ nearly nary an Oppose and over 100 (in this case 138) Supports, and then as admin goes on about town w/ complete confidence but soon going "Frankenstein". At this point Colonel Warden's sole Oppose turns out like some kind of genius:
1. Oppose The candidate's content creation is meagre. [...] Warden (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
[...]
the candidate doesn't do much article improvement either, does he? 99% of our articles are not of good quality and so there's no shortage of such work to be done. I reviewed all the candidate's edits for April and I only found one edit which seemed to be proper editing. It was to Clovis North Educational Center. In this edit, various things are done. Among them, the statement "It was established in 2007 with Norm Anderson as principal..." is changed to "It was established in 2007 with Scott Dille as principal...". This change seems to be incorrect because it appears that Norm Anderson was indeed the initial principal and Scott Dille was appointed in 2011. So, that's one significant content edit in a month and it was erroneous. This isn't wickedness — accidents will happen — but it indicates the level at which the candidate is operating when it comes to our primary activity and purpose. The candidate should not be presuming to oversee and control other editors until he has demonstrated a higher level of competence and experience. Warden (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody cares. Nick (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
While I don't think Eric is a saint, I must say I'm disgusted with this whole GGTF affair from the outset; in particular, the ArbCom amendment to the topic ban which effectively legalized the hunting season on Eric (who won't let himself be silenced). Anyway: I was thinking on demonstrating our ("the fan club's") support for Eric by quite simple means: as long as he is blocked, we don't produce any content, i.e. act as if we're all blocked. While, I must admit, I planned to go to a wikibreak anyway, so I don't think anybody should be obliged, I felt inclined to express that idea as a food for thought. No such user (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody in a position to affect the situation gives a damn whether you (or I, or others in this thread) go on strike. It will accomplish nothing other than the internal satisfaction of taking a principled stand. Sorry to be so blunt but that's how it is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment I can't comment on Eric's block nor GGTF as it would probably fall under my topic ban. However, I use a nifty user script that pretty much 'crosses out' and greys someone's username who is blocked. I think it would be useful as sometimes, you don't know when someone is blocked until you view the blocklog or see their username somewhere else but you'd like to know when someone's blocked--you know, for context. It's located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_scripts#Discussion_oriented <- It's called 'Mark Blocked'. Tutelary (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
And what relevance is this to anything here, Tutelary? As someone hinted in the ANI thread concerning Knowledgekid, you tend to pop up with rather unhelpful remarks at a wide range of venues. This looks rather like one to me. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope Eric won't mind me shopping here for some advice. At All Saints' Church, Shuart, after a sentence ending "... Domesday Book does not say where in the manor they lived.", there's a ref number "26": clicking on it goes nowhere; but if you go down to the subsection "Notes" and click on note 26 to take you to it in the text, it takes you to ref number 35! There's also a harv error reported for the entry for "Eales, R." in the Bibliography, which is somehow connected: looking at the editing area for the article, the ref at the end of that sentence cites Williams & Martin, and Eales. I've gone boss-eyed looking at the formatting, would someone with a fresh pair of eyes have a look at it for me? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, RexxS, you can place {{harvnb}} inside refs, but I think it's a different issue. As you've seen on the page, though, I'm going through stepwise to figure out what that may be. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? You can certainly place other forms of reference inside {{refn}}, but I've never seen {{harvnb}} work inside <ref>...</ref>. Anyway, I seem to be having some success in the Origin section by unbundling them. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I'm talking rubbish about {{harvnb}}. You're quite right - it's been so long since I've used them because I switched to {{sfn}} some time ago. Apologies. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: It seems that since you only placed one bracket before "{{harvnb}}", a large portion of the contents table has been deleted. There is also an error whenever attempting to directly edit this section and a few others. --Biblioworm15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
My knackered old eyes are greatly relieved to see that this issue at All Saints Church, Shuart, is now pinpointed – thanks to both RexxS and Primefac for their attention! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Now fixed, thanks Biblioworm. Many thanks to Primefac who spotted the actual problem was an unclosed html comment in the article. All Saints' Church is now in a good state of repair. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library
Call for Volunteers
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Decided to make a start on this. Important article which should probably be at least GA quality in its own right. Any help from page stalkers will be warmly appreciated as it is cited by a staggering number of articles from the 19th century and first half of 20th.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Doc, that is pretty poor. It's what happens when crap is copied from one place to another and it takes us back to the Dark Ages of copy/pasting from the old, public domain ODNB etc. Did you really have to do that? WP:DEADLINE etc? - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back, I thought it was best to start that way. Obviously you disagree, so use your draft and do what you like.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've left it with the content I added myself. If that's still not good enough for you then you can kiss my ass ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld12:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Cumulative apologies for introducing formatting problems (depth of my ignorance on smart formatting is such that I ask myself 'what is ir?') into an article you've obviously put a lot of effort into; and cumulative thanks for mostly putting up with them. Any thoughts on the Manchester Observer bit on this page? My view is something needs to be done if there has to be something said about the fate of the MO on the PM page: the concept of 'libelous court cases' flags up it's not quite kosher Rjccumbria (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think using too many contemporary sources and quotations has led to the article becoming difficult to read, editors should use modern terminology. It should not incorporate mini articles on newspapers and other linked material. Focus is being lost through over-detailed edits. J3Mrs (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the look of that. I currently drive a C63 which is a great car (but thirsty) and my father used to own a 450 SL, so I do know a thing or two about Mercs. It's also a common misconception that Henry Ford invented the first motor vehicle, but of course, in fact, the petrol heads among us will know that it was Karl Benz. CassiantoTalk16:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If only I could have a car that nice. I drive a 12 year old BMW 325xi. At least it's a stick, and drives well. :-)—cyberpowerChat:Online21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Classic BMWs are becoming very rare and collectable, much like the old Fords from the Dagenham era. I always wanted a BMW M1 but never got round to owning one unfortunately. CassiantoTalk22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
During my Ford owning days, I was told that if it had been retired from the production line then it could be considered a classic. Having said that, I've always found "classic" to be a subjective description; after all, who'd have though that 25 years on a Lada Riva would've been called as such. CassiantoTalk22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of German cars, which reminds me that I must get back to the restoration of our MGB GT. My Jaguar XJ-S will undoubtedly become a classic if it isn't one now, but it's stupidly expensive to keep on the road, so I sold it. EricCorbett22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry we can't be friends now with that comment. J/K. Anyways, I'm a huge fan. Maybe it's because I'm German. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online23:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Is your MG the V8 version Eric? And does it have the lovely chrome or the rubber bumber blocks from America? I once knew a guy who owned an X-Type from 2001. He didn't own it long as he soon found out that it shared a floor pan with the Ford Mondeo. Not so much a Jaguar but a wolf in sheep's clothing. CassiantoTalk23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's the basic four-cylinder version with the rubber bumpers. We almost bought a V8 MGC instead, but it had a problem with the gearbox. We should maybe have bought that and got the gearbox fixed, but hindsight is easy. EricCorbett23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The engine, I imagine, would not be that dissimilar to the XJ, so it would have been just as costly to run I would think. I had a TR3A a year or so ago but sold it as it was costing a fortune each year in repair bills. In fact, my Merc now at 6.3 litres seems better on fuel than that was and that was a 2.1! CassiantoTalk23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The MGC has the Rover V8, the Jag has a straight six Jaguar engine. The Jag might do about six miles to the gallon on a good day around town, and it was difficult to find a parking space big enough for it. I loved that car, but I don't regret selling it. EricCorbett23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Were they the same engine capacity or was the Jag a bit more than the MGC? Six miles to the gallon is diabolical, especially what with the UK's fuel prices being the way they are. I can imagine that the XJ would be very cumbersome to use on a daily basis around town, no wonder many of them were battered and beaten half to death whenever I saw them. I expect you remember the Jensen Interceptor. Now that was a big-engined car that I always wanted to own; I've always loved the Touring designs. The most recent of course being the new version of their old design of the Alfa Romeo Disco Volante. CassiantoTalk05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I had to look up "leviathan", so I'm guessing it wasn't me that put it in the article. Typical Brit, blame the Yanks for everything that you can't pin on the French. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The MGC is an inline six, a tired old truck engine that was obsolete when they first built them into an MG – and too heavy for a sports car. The MGB V8 was the aluminium Rover 3.5 that went into everything, an excellent engine and very tunable. "MGB GT" means a hardtop MGB, not anything about the engine, but for reasons of floorpan rigidity it was too expensive to build a convertible MGB with more torque, so MG only built two of them as V8s and never sold them. The MGB V8 was a hardtop GT. After-market conversions are easy, but unless the floorpan is stiffened properly (or a roll cage), they're as nasty to drive as a Fiat Dino. The Jaguar six is 3.6 litres, but usually a bit lower tuned than the Rover. It came in other sizes too, but the 3.6 was the favourite. The XJS engine is the 5.3 litre V12, another superb classic engine. The original doesn't work right except on '60s petrol, but the 6.0 XJS-HE engine managed to make a good engine even better (more power, less fuel, better emissions and all still built on the same production line). It's thirsty in an XJS because it's hauling around such a great boat of a Grand Tourer, but in a lightweight chassis it can reach 30+mpg. The engine itself is efficient. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Erg...I can't compete with all these...as we had four kids we had to get a people mover. Settled on a Toyota Tarago (Tarago in Oz = Previa elsewhere...buggered if I know the reason for the name change...). Inherited a manual VW Polo from a friend of my mother's which I really enjoy driving though and did start me thinking about getting cars with really good handling in future....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this a good time to point out that I really want the Mercedes F015? Or that my dad had a really sporty Audi? Sorry can't remember the model. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online23:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
FA review
Eric, I'd like to ask you a big favor, if you don't mind. The article I wrote, Juan Manuel de Rosas, is suffering from lack of reviews, mostly because it's an obscure topic (at least to most Wikipedians who care only to WWII and Civil War). Rosas was a dictator of Argentina in the early 19th century, also a rival of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and both clashed in a war that led to his downfall. I can assure you that the topic is interesting and that you'll enjoy reading it. If you have any available time, could you review it? The FAC page is here. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a look, but I can't promise anything. It's rather insightful that Jimbo Wales believes that I'm public enemy number one, so I won't be rushing to help anyone with anything. EricCorbett21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Checking unreviewed FAs
Welcome back. A while ago I mentioned this message about tune-up work on the oldest unreviewed FAs. I have gone about as far as I can with Mendip Hills, Bath, Somerset and Exmoor. I was wondering if you (or one of your talk page stalkers) would be willing to look at the prose before I go back to Maralia saying they still meet the standards? I have some more still to add about hydrology and water quality to River Parrett, but hope to have that done in the next day or two. Somerset still needs the demographic section updating which I will get to when I can. That will leave Sweet Track and Buildings and architecture of Bristol in need of reviews in July (once I get back from Glastonbury Festival). As you improved the prose of many of these before their FA nominations I wondered if you were still interested enough to take another look?— Rodtalk11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I find postings such as this one on WMF sites to be grossly offensive:
"The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities."[1]
So what do I do, abuse women in my community?
Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable. EricCorbett20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
How many courses are the WMF funding on teaching men how to deal with women rather than on women how to deal with men? Are we all children here? EricCorbett20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
False dichotomy, Eric. To suggest that one could 'increase support' is not to imply that previously one was an abuser.
Mind, as someone who does literally spend all day trying to focus lasers, I should probably make one of the currently fashionable complaints of "triggers" or somesuch. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a false dichotomy. Eric, you are actually an ally already even though you don't realize it yet. The proof is in your actual work and actual accomplishments. You can try to run but the reality is that you have basic respect for ordinary people and I've rarely seen you snark at someone who didn't deserve it. (Note, I said "rarely," not "never.") You have no idea how truly miserable a creature the under-30 troll who lives in his mommy's basement living on a diet of soda pop and porn can be once he is turned loose in a place like 4chan. You aren't that person and you don't want those people to suck you in with a false promise of brotherhood. Montanabw(talk)02:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obvious that Callanecc will block me for at least a month this time, but really, who gives a fuck? EricCorbett21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Eric, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. It is a shame that others sit waiting to pounce like vultures on any comment you make. I do wish to ask for you to evaluate a GA nomination for me, on a topic you might enjoy, as soon as this nonsense passes. No one deserves to be silenced, particularly not quality editors like you. There is more irony here than could be handled by Bethlehem Steel :-) Scr★pIronIV02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To enforce an arbitration decision and for this comment, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
(edit conflict) An uninvolved administrator can enforce the topic ban without going to WP:AE, which is what I've done. Eric can of course appeal it via the standard channels. But calling the result of that AE discussion consensus against enforcing the restriction is a bit of a stretch—out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop, and all of the discussion was either a jab at the requester, disagreement with the sanction itself, or general commentary. Not a single comment addressed the content of Eric's edit, and whether it was a violation of his restriction from "making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed," which it clearly was. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Gee, I'm sorry that all of us non-admins bothered to put our opinions out there. Should we have raised our hands and asked for permission first? I have difficulty remembering that mere editors are not supposed to have an opinion. GregJackPBoomer!03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Your comment, like everyone else's there, did not address whether his edit was a violation of his restrictions. AE is not the place to decide the scope of the sanctions that the Arbitration Committee imposed. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You said: "out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop", which would lead one to believe that those (sysop/admin) opinions are the only ones that matter. That is a completely inappropriate attitude for an administrator, much less an ArbCom member. Of course, since I'm only an editor, my opinion does not matter. Nor, I presume from your comments, do any of the other seven editors opinion matter. GregJackPBoomer!03:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, non-admins regularly contribute to AE in a very meaningful way. My comment was a note on the makeup of the commenters—only one other than the closer would have actually been able to action any sort of block. My concerns about the opinions there is that they had nothing to do with whether Eric's edit was a violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, I can see that now, that non-admins are valuable and make meaningful contributions. Unless, of course, they get in Javert's way by recommending a less than draconian response. My concerns is that you completely disregarded the views of the nine that weighted in, and the admin that closed it as no action. While it is clear that you are untouchable on the issue, it doesn't make it right. I am aware of Eric's restrictions, I'm aware that it was a technical violation, as, I'm sure, were the other editors involved. We just don't believe that it merited a month-long block. I'm going to drop this now, but I sincerely believe that you disregarded the views at WP:AE and did what you wanted to do anyway. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The substance of the comments made. Did it cause a problem? Was it disrespectful? Did it make anything worse? No, it didn't cause a shit storm until it was blown out of proportion. Sanctions should make sense, how did this? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
We've already seen there are varying views on whether it was problematic or disrespectful. What we have not seen was anyone saying that Eric's comments were not a breach of the restriction. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What we have also not seen is an impartial examination of the comment before you blocked. If you are making the justification that you did it on the principle and not the substance it would make things easier for anyone involved to realize you did it because you could. It was an excuse, you had no real reason other then you saw it and a line that was crossed that hurt no one gave you the excuse to follow what you think should have happened in the GGTF case. It helps grease the way to that path and you can help nudge it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Before you go any further I am absolutely confident this block was in response to actions causing greivous harm to both the encyclopedia and its community and is entirely unrelated to GW's displeasure with Lightbreather's upcoming siteban and the arbitrators who support it. 166.177.187.29 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well this is the way to get brownie points with Mr Wales and his campaign against articulate content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What a fucking joke! GorillaWarfare, can I ask what the good is in asking for "statements from..." at ArbCom, establishing in a consensus, and then ignoring it and doing what the hell you like anyway? You've seemingly stuck two fingers up to the people who have posted there and have done what you wanted to do in the first place. Does this kind of bullshit make you feel big? CassiantoTalk07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm perhaps not understanding your question. We ask for statements at ArbCom cases to help reach a decision. Eric's restriction was implemented almost seven months ago, is this what you're objecting to? GorillaWarfare(talk)07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I meant AE. Sorry, I don't understand the process as I'm a content creator (so expect for me to be blocked pretty soon too). Did you you not read Cas liber's post above? As far as I can see we had a dozen people against any action and you went ahead and blocked Eric anyway, devoid of the consensus at that page. My point is what is the good in asking for people's statements when you have no intention of following a consensus should it form? CassiantoTalk07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
yeah but its about the forth time Eric breaks the same topic ban since it had been imposed ... it s not like he did not know what he was getting into. At this point it is all but too clear he is asking for a break - so it s not really surprising he does get a break - is it? ChristopheT (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Your response is appreciated, but it was not directed at you. It was directed at GW which she is still yet to answer. Also, I found your response to be incoherent as I don't know what you mean by "break". Are you suggesting Eric asked to be blocked? CassiantoTalk08:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eric broke the rules, no question about it, but any sane system allows for discretion and that is what people are getting pissed about. The block is a peculiar application of the first-mover principle: while admins will overturn closes, they won't usually overturn blocks and GW, who is manifestly involved and policing for the sake of policing ion this instance, knows it. Just look at this removal today of a post that had stood of the PD page of an arbcom case since 21 June. Apparently, despite it being clear that many arbs etc are watching that page, GW decides that the comment is trolling. She had not been particularly active since the thing was posted but, boom! that others were active and left it alone seems to count for nothing. I suppose there may have been exchanges about it on the arbs list but it looks prima facie like a unilateral decision that lacks consensus simply by dint of the comment's longevity. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Discretion for t and ibans is for ambiguous cases. If someone is banned from American politics, makes a comment about Obama, but strikes it, them discretion is required. But there is no room for discretion for unambiguous violations. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears from the comments of the blocking admin that this block, which is against the consensus at the AE request, is a punitive one. The comments in question was on the User's own talk page and in no way was a disruption to the project. When I saw that request in AE page I wasn't familiar with the original sanction, and why it was imposed on this user. But it struck me as odd that an AE request was filed against such a minor breach. I don't disagree that it was a breach, but I don't see how this in any way can be seen as disruption to the project. In short, the block was against the consensus, disregarded the AE decision itself and was in violation with Wikipedia sanctioning policies. I still don't know much about the original sanction, or whether there is an ongoing feud among editors and admins as it has been suggested above, as one of the commentors in that AE request, I felt obligated to follow up. Darwinian Ape talk09:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban applies to any talk page. Breaking the same rule 4 times is not not 'random' or 'unlucky' or 'minor' - it demonstrates determination & intent. ChristopheT (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The jury, passing on the prisoner's life, May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two Guiltier than him they try.--MONGO09:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, though, I fail to see how this sanction could improve Wikipedia, or how this minor breach was disruptive in any way. And I don't know the nature of his past violations, but if they were similar to this one, they should not have required a sanction either. Darwinian Ape talk10:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And how does blocking Eric for a month help us exactly ? .... I get he's topic-banned from GGTF but christ blocking him over a little comment is a bit OTT .... Everyone pretty much disagreed with the report at AE yet he was blocked regardless anyway ..... If this isn't a punitive block then I honestly don't know what is!. –Davey2010Talk10:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Fuck. There goes at least one Good Article I was contemplating. Thanks for nothing GW, what a fucking pointless, arrogant exercise this block is. Nortonius (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare claiming to be uninvolved is one of the more ludicrous statements I've seen in my time here. This also points out one of the problems with that whole "broadly construed" framework. It's effectively a shoot on sight order. Intothatdarkness14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I very much respect Eric's content work, and in that sense it is a truly considerable loss if he actually has retired. However, I'm neutral on the GGTF issue, and I don't consider myself to be a part of the "Eric Corbett fan club", so my perspective on this particular issue is that of an uninvolved editor. Eric's comments above is somewhat brash (but then, I don't think anyone would disagree that such a thing is common with Eric). The issue of whether or not it violates the scope of the topic ban is a difficult issue. He did not once directly mention the GGTF or the gender disparity. However, I suspect that his link is what is being used here. The said link takes you to a thread about the Ally Skills Workshop. The thread is hosted on the Gendergap mailing list, but I don't believe that simply linking to a thread on a mailing list which is generally about the gender disparity obviously violates the topic ban. Also, the workshop mentioned in the mailing list thread does not mention the gender disparity or the GGTF, while the workshop itself does not mention any direct relation to any of those two topics either; it simply states that it is supposed to teach men how to support women. The only possible violation committed by linking to that thread must be very vague. Now, if he had made a comment boldly and obviously mentioning the GGTF and/or the gender disparity, the block would certainly be justified per the ArbCom sanction. (I will not state my personal opinions on the said sanctions, though.) Thus, I feel that this particular case is much too vague and borderline to warrant an official AE block by an admin who has clearly been involved with this topic before and has shown strong opinions concerning it. My opinion is that Eric should be unblocked and the AE case reopened, where it will be left open until multiple uninvolved admins comment. --Biblioworm14:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I suggest that you go to ARCA & attempt to get your talkpage exempted from your GGTF Arb restriction. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, right. You may trust ArbCom but I don't; such a request would very quickly turn into a proposal for a full siteban. EricCorbett13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Taking liberties ....
Eric, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the liberty of adding your latest FA, which was promoted today, to your user page. Thank you for all the work you do on improving content, some of us do appreciate it; I'm sure readers do too. SagaciousPhil - Chat14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Eric, did you have any comments that you wished to make at the ArbCom case? I would be happy to relay them for you, if you wanted me to do so. GregJackPBoomer!18:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I will simply say this.
I have absolutely no idea how anyone could believe that a comment of mine, on my own talk page, expressing criticism of a WMF grant, could in any way be considered to be in breach of a sanction prohibiting discussion of:
"(i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed."
That's all I have to say about this gross abuse of power on the part of GW, who has yet to explain her reasoning or admit her bias. EricCorbett12:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Having been emailed about this biased and vindictive abuse of power, all I will say is for God's sake Eric, leave this silly, horrible bunch of misguided Americans, mad women and politically correct sycophants too write their own bloody encyclopedia and get a better life elsewhere. Giano(talk)13:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If you really dislike the GGTF, why don't you ignore it? Remove all the GGTF-related pages from your watchlist. What's the point of continuing to get yourself in trouble for saying things which will likely never change anything, but rather simply get you blocked? It's really like trying to pedal a bicycle in the air while expecting that you'll actually move. From the perspective of the GGTF, I think it would also be best if they did exactly the same thing. I'm not saying that you not be involved in any discussions, but is it really that difficult to abstain from one topic? You have repeatedly stated that we're here to build an encyclopedia, and I'm unable to see how getting yourself blocked once every two weeks or so furthers that goal. --Biblioworm15:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite. This is a unilateral extension of my sanction by a clearly biased arbitrator. I fail to see how anyone can find that acceptable. EricCorbett15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the block is under (iii) of the ban quoted above, extremely broadly construed. I'm less concerned about the block than about the process, the duration and the involvement. You knew it was dodgy to say that, Eric, even if the ban is in fact manifestly extreme. Do you even bother going near Enid Blyton nowadays? The way these things are abused might even make it dodgy to contribute there, especially when people are stalking you to death and pulling you up over the most trivial things. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That you're uncertain is because GW has failed to provide any rationale. There was no mention of the GGTF or gender disparity in the grant application, or in the posting I linked to, and neither did I mention either of those issues. But if we're going to have "broadly construed" tortured in this way by a single biased arbitrator then I wish you luck in your efforts here. EricCorbett16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Or, just try to avoid anything remotely related to that topic. (Grants, mailing lists, etc...) You should know by now that an AE case will be posted very quickly whenever you write any comment that may have the slightest relation to the gender gap. (That is how I interpret any sanction with the condition "broadly construed".) As I have said before, I have no opinion about, or interest in, the gender gap topic itself, but I'm just taking simple observations concerning sanctions... --Biblioworm16:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
As GW mentioned in the diff which she linked a few minutes ago (now removed), you linked to the gender gap mailing list. --Biblioworm16:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
In what sense is that a "discussion", no matter how broadly construed? You may consider it to be a discussion, but it wasn't one I had ever taken part in. EricCorbett16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(In response to your edit summary, it's not my personal opinion; it's the opinion of the arbs who enacted the "broadly construed" sanction. While I actually might agree with a ban from directly mentioning said topics, I think simply linking to a discussion on a mailing list that has "gender gap" in its name is stretching it too far.) Doesn't your sanction also specify that you can be blocked not only for participating in a discussion about the said topic, but also making any edit related to it? Anyway, I'm finished here. --Biblioworm16:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it does. If GW wants to extend it in that direction then she ought to go through the proper channels. EricCorbett16:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
[This isn't really in response to you, but to other people who might read this page.] I don't see what it matters if you discuss the gender gap on your talk page. It's not like you're harassing women - far from it! You don't understand why feminist ideals are important to many people, and that's OK. You received two thoughtful replies and could've had an enriching discussion. Forget about the letter of the law, and forget about its spirit too - what purpose does this block serve? Alakzi (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It serves the purpose of escalating things towards an indef. That's what the vindictive people want. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And the solution to this passive-aggressive nonsense, as someone has already pointed out, is to simply avoid GGTF-related subject matter entirely. And then perhaps at least a few of those Eric-obsessed folks might devote more of their spare time to (gasp!) creating content -- which is what we are all supposed to be doing here, n'est-ce pas? DoctorJoeEreview transgressions/talk to me!17:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I was plusing the "passive-aggressive nonsense" sentence. It's really easy for Eric to avoid drama and blocks, but that's all he seems to want. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And what might the remainder of those folks do? (Attend WMF courses implying women need "help", and all men are dicks without special training how to "help" them?) IHTS (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, Eric, and the pushes tend to come from people who wouldn't know how to create a decent article (sometimes indeed any article) if you gave them one to copy: they seem to be here primarily to police other people, on some sort of power trip. I know that mandatory sentences do exist for certain breaches of the law in various parts of the world but in civilised countries most breaches incur punishments that have a degree of latitude, based on circumstances etc. This place - which has a whole crowd of robotic, slavish, vindictive people acting as judges, witnesses and informants - tends towards the more totalitarian approach even though we're not dealing with offences of murder or drugs or rape etc.
Your comment was a minor thing, as I think has usually been the case, but because they want you gone, they turn it into something big every time. Despicable, really, and I don't think they realise how many good people have already left or seriously wound-down their efforts here precisely because of this methodology. That was deserving of a 24 hour block for a technical transgression; people don't have to apply an escalation.
Don't reply to this, Eric. I can see a further punitive block being engineered from it. I'll buy you a beer some time. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Alakzi, you said, "You don't understand why feminist ideals are important to many people, and that's OK." I'm not looking to split any hairs here, but I've seen no evidence at all that Eric does not support "feminist ideals". He has said many times that he believes that both men and women should be accepted on their merits, not on their gender. As a women and a feminist myself, I am quite familiar with feminist thinking, and that is exactly what women have been asking for throughout the ages. It is Wikipedia that misunderstands what the "feminist ideal" means, largely due to the recent string of the opinions of a few editors who have represented themselves as authorities on feminism. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's just say they've got a different conception of feminism; it doesn't really take away from my point. I apologise if I've mischaracterised Eric. Alakzi (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, a degree of sense is beginning to emerge. Although the block settings have not been altered, Adjwilleyhas said they will reduce it to one week. That's kind of what I meant about using discretion and common sense etc, rather than simply escalating because you can. No admin has to block and no admin has to escalate. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps not. Courcelles is telling Adjwilley that the block cannot be modified due to lack of a clear and substantial consensus. The fact that the block was inappropriately placed and so presumably void doesn't seem to matter, nor does it matter that consensus is that the "offence" was trivial in nature. This makes a nonsense of things: ArbCom seems now to be the tail wagging the dog. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Arbitrators seem to have a very inflated opinion of themselves and the importance of their role, one I don't share. In truth though one month or one week makes little difference to me, so there's no need for Adjwilley to stick his neck out. EricCorbett21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Be sure to only use "it" as a pronoun, and under no circumstances whatever use "he" or "she" or any related sexist words as "broadly construed" per se may fall afoul of the topic ban <g>. Collect (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblocked
Per the (lack of) consensus on the admin's noticeboard (permalink), I have unblocked you. I would like to encourage you personally to stop paying attention to anything related to the GGTF and its mailing list. Nothing really good can come of it. Only drama will happen. Good luck with your retirement, or whatever you choose to do. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Um Reaper, by unblocking an AE block lacking consensus to do so, you just realized you resigned your admin bit, right? Unless I'm drastically missing something... Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Um, no, GW didn't have consensus to block EC after BK's action to close the discussion at AE. She had to have consensus to block after an admin action at AE. The rule is clear on that, and only an admin can close at AE, so it is an admin action. GregJackPBoomer!04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
While Reaper Eternal's reading of the consensus was slightly different than mine, I think their rationale was better thought out. To actually take Reaper's bit one would have to prove that there was consensus at WP:AN to leave the month-long block in place, since a WP:AN discussion with such wide participation far outweighs the actions of a single admin. Yes, one could make arguments that there wasn't a "clear and substantial consensus" to unblock, but by the same measure there was even less consensus to leave the block in place making it a grey area at best, and both closes agreed that the original block was out-of-process. I guess what I'm trying to say is what's done is done, and the less we can draw this out the better. Taking Reaper to Arbcom is only shooting Wikipedia in the foot. ~Adjwilley (talk)04:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Reaper overturned what he knew was an AE block without consensus. Gorilla was clear she was acting as an admin and not an arb; she was equally clear it was an AE block. Reaper may have thought that Gorilla had also violated policy, but he has still just violated one of the only red lines arbcom has ever drawn. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a bunch of people who see it differently, who see GW as the one who created the mess by not seeking consensus to overturn an AE action. I read it the same way that Adjwilleyy and Reaper do. GregJackPBoomer!05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And if Gorilla's action was wrong, there were other paths of recourse. You need solid consensus even to overturn a shitty AE decision. This is codified policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a very broad concept, in the article also translated as compassion, and based on The Mote and the Beam, (quoting from our article: warning ... of the dangers of judging others). It's here sometimes translated to AGF (do you know Eric's translation of that?). I have been to AE. Someone reporting there knows what "drama would ensue" and has the option simply not to do it. Someone could also have said here on the talk: "I assume in good faith that you didn't mean this edit as a breach of your restrictions, but it may be misunderstood, - perhaps revert yourself or rephrase." I suggested in the arbitration request that such an approach should be recommended in general, to avoid a lot of drama on the noticeboards. - Thank you Ritchie, for offering a GA review! - Hi, Eric, sorry for speaking about you instead of to you, but it's a forum ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I log on today and check my watchlist to find a very sudden change of events. I personally agree with the unblock, for the reasons I have given above. But if you do return to editing, Eric, please be careful and avoid making any comments that could be in any way related to the gender gap, or perhaps, as Tony advised, anything gender-related. If for no one or nothing else, do it for Reaper's sake, since she may very well be desysopped by ArbCom for this, and it would be quite a waste if you were to simply get yourself blocked again. --Biblioworm14:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
((Very) personal comment.) Heigh Ho! Here we go! Again and again and again! What a waste of time and energy. Is this an encyclopedia or a battleground for personal campaigns? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I now bring good tidings of great joy! If everyone minded their own business and stopped going around starting dramah (I'm not targeting anyone in particular), Wikipedia would be a much better place. Besides, unless it happens to be a controversial topic, I've found that working on articles is the most peaceful and relaxing thing you can do here. In fact, I regret my previous attitude toward "content work", since in a typical newbie fashion I imagined that there were no more interesting articles to create or work on. --Biblioworm14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Salvio giuliano I'm going to assume that since the injunction was passed while Eric was a named party, that it still applies to him. Thus, no one given an Arb injunction may initiate an admin action against him while the case is ongoing. ie: I am barred from blocking him or asking someone else to block him, as would any other who received the notice, and if they do, they should expect an AE sanction. I agree with your decision (Obviously this case is about enforcement, not Eric), but wanted to make that point clear, since Arb didn't pass a new injunction and he was listed as a party when the old one passed. We don't need more drama piled on there. Dennis Brown - 2¢09:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
These are unusual times, thus call for unusual questions. That seemed the logical conclusion and again, didn't want to see more drama added to the case. Surely there are plenty of admin eyes on Eric as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
