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.
Today's TFA (not by me) had a 2019 support by you, - a rare gift, appreciated. Would like your comments on Clara Schumann, peer review open, also should change to October but no flowers ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for the collaboration on Guy Fawkes, "just one of 13 conspirators involved in the plot to kill James I, but he has since become synonymous with the scheme. There must be very few people in Great Britain who do not know the name of the man whose effigy is ritually burnt each 5 November. We've tried to separate the man from the plot as best we can"! Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Boycott
I suggest boycotting editing WP, until & unless Eric Corbett is permitted back w/ all restrictions, which were stupid & absurd, lifted. --IHTS (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Have the WMF paid you to make this suggestion? I should image there’s nothing it would like more than for all Eric’s friends to abandon the project. Giano(talk)16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
When the one for whom I used the "without petty restrictions" precious left - also with a few provoking socks (and Eric was the first to oppose the inevitable ban) - I debated with myself to do the same, but thought that it was exactly what some would hope for ;) - I have been immune since. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Guessing or supposing or imagining what the WMF wants or thinks or rejoices, is unknowable & pointless. The indef of Eric Corbett is the clearest example of WP:NOTHERE that could be. --IHTS (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Eric's departure is an incalculable loss to the project. He should be returned PDQ and allowed to run for the Arbcom. He would undoubtedly receive thousands of votes and be swept to glory and instill some common sense in a place where there appears to be none! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Kbrown (WMF), do you actually follow what happens on Wikipedia? If you did, you would know that Eric Corbett, one of the project’s leading comment editors, has been banned, and the Arbitration Committee are now successfully trying to eliminate all trace of him because his huge content contributions are an embarrassment to them. There are many of us here who consider banning Eric Corbett to be nothing more than an act of wanton vandalism towards the project as a whole. Rather than spamming his page the WMF should be explaining why this has been allowed to happen and apologising to the community. The Arbcom’s recent actions (doubtless encouraged by WMF) have done far more damage to the project's than a million short tempered snaps from Eric could ever have achieved. Giano(talk)15:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Dr Horncastle
Assuming Dr Horncastle was indeed you, I understand the point you were making now. FWIW, I would agree with you about forgiving past crimes - I'd be happy to see you back. I don't understand why you went onto those RfAs though, and made obviously pointed comments - it was like a big neon 'investigate me' sign. I hope you appeal to Arbcom and return at some point in the future - whether that be with this account, or with a legitimate fresh start account if you want to shrug off the history. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)16:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Second that. Come on pal, you know that was only ever going to end one way. Sorry I was sardonic to you; I thought you were...someone else, shall we say :) ——SN5412916:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I agree that people should be able to, after a period of good behavior, ask for another chance and get it. I'd like to see you get there. --valereee (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Of for Heaven’s sake, do stop all this! Wikipedia is a voluntary encyclopaedia project, not a youth detention centre, with time off for good behaviour. Eric has committed no real crime, he is just a short tempered individual who vents his feelings with a few expletives. I seriously doubt there are any genuine women, men, gays, cis genders or Uncle Tom Cobleys and all who are trembling in their beds at night fearing Eric is coming for them. Most of what he says is very useful, a little bit is pointy and a tiny bit wince making, but where Eric is concerned the more vocal minority seems to rule. I would love to see him back, doing what he does best, writing decent articles and highlighting the project’s foibles. However, that does seem to make some tremble in their beds at night, and I can’t see why. If you don’t like him, don’t read him or come here spoiling for a fight. Giano(talk)20:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Giano, what? I do like him. I want him to return, which I requires both him to want to come back, and the community to allow it. He spent a few weeks doing great work under a dodgy account, but his actions at those RfAs made a sock block inevitable. I want to see him back properly, head held high, and I'd throw a few rose petals under his feet on the way - but this wasn't the way to make that happen. GirthSummit (blether)21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, under the present regime, it’s the only way it can happen. It’s rather like people on 18th century transportation ships, throwing themselves overboard to drown, swimming back to shore and then having to live for eternity under a false name. Wikipedia seems to have the same penal code. The rest of the western world has moved on. Giano(talk)21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion will not further anything. The tags are on Eric's user page, the content is on Eric's user page. Thank you all for your opinions, thank you Scotty Wong for your restoration. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appropriately, "Functionaries have discussed this on the list" is the kind of lack of transparency I think plagues Wikipedia. @Primefac: I don't really see anything in blocking policy that warrants you editing through full protection to restore templates that multiple editors have objected to, and then claiming that a "community discussion" is necessary to undo your action. Our protection policy states that you may only make consensus-based edits to that page. At least one other editor has pointed out that the block log and notice do a fine job explaining the purpose and manner of the block, and we don't need the scarlet letter on a real-named account. It's authoritarian crap like this that makes everyday editors wary of so-called functionaries and people who believe a flag on their account makes them an authority. Thanks for illustrating my point—I guess? --Laser brain(talk)02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: I am going to second the ""Functionaries have discussed this on the list" is the kind of lack of transparency I think plagues Wikipedia" Discuss this IN THE OPEN. You can set the rules ('this page is only for discussion between functionaries') but these hidden discussions for no reason is why the lack of trust in both WMF and ArbCom is at an ever low. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Virtually every single move that's been made in regards to Eric these past few months has been done behind closed doors. Be it a decision to go from a split decision on whether to accept the case, to an over the weekend little email chat to not only accept it - but to handle everything away from the community with a motion. Now deciding what to leave on the users page as icing on the cake - or more correctly, salt in the wound. This has been one terrible decision after another, and it makes "management" look like a circus of bumbling fools. I sure hope the new incoming Arbcom handles things a lot better than the past one. — Ched (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ched: There was never a "split decision". Initially we voted to accept Eric's case (4–3). After discussing the scope of it more arbs were willing to support (6–1), but it was happening either way. The reason the case didn't go ahead is that EC was CheckUser blocked before we opened it. Under both local enwiki and global WMF policy, there's absolutely no possibility of us discussing CheckUser evidence on-wiki. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, my understanding is that 4-3[3] is a split vote. "Four net votes": the number of votes to support or accept (or oppose or decline) is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline (or support or accept).[4]. Hopefully you can understand my confusion here. As far as "CheckUser evidence" - I think I'll hold my tongue on that little gem for now. You can have the last word - I'm going to bed. — Ched (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I get that our procedures are a bit opaque. Accepting a case requires four net votes or a majority (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings). In that case, we had 7 active, non-recused arbs, so 4 was a majority. I think the fact that we had a subsequent motion to open with different vote counts contributed to the confusion (you're not the first person I've seen say this), but basically Eric Corbett was a standard public case until the socking happened. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Given the airs of Primefac's edit, the functionaries seem to be pretty acutely jobless to have been discussing about the slapping of a sock-master tag, behind the doors. ∯WBGconverse08:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Waking up, shaking head, I support every word Laser brain has said, and Ched's "salt in the wound". It hurts. IF you have to tell our readers, who may want to know who is behind some FA they read, that the person is blocked (which I don't think we should do), please have the decency to ALSO present the info about the person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep the tags, keep the list of achievements. Both are important for the information of future editors. PamD15:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This comment regards the blanking of his user page; I find the re-addition of the tags pointless, but not nearly as outrageous. At the end of the day, Eric upset a lot of people in positions of power. I suppose it was optimistic to think they’d resist the temptation to gloat. Disappointing, but not really surprising. I’m trying to avoid the trap of becoming a perennial gadfly - I find those who constantly gripe about everything Arbcom does tiresome and self defeating. But I certainly think less of the functionaries as a whole than I did yesterday. The only bright spot I can see is that this decision happened semi-fast; Ivanvector probably emailed the list around 18:30 UTC (when he posted he had done so on my talk page), and the blanking was done at around 01:30 UTC , 7 hours later. I hold out some small hope that those I still hold in high regard weren’t part of the rushed conversation. Or were outvoted. But I'll never know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Floq. I decided to post here to register my ire knowing a lot of people feel the same way. In the end I knew I'd get a hand-waving response from Primefac if any at all. My lack of respect comes from accepting responsibility for making decisions but refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences or aftermath for everyday editors. --Laser brain(talk)17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency as mentioned by a number of people here, this was my message (verbatim) to the list yesterday:
I guess I'll be the lone voice of dissent on this mailing list because I just don't see the benefit to adding this tag to Eric's (or any other long-term-but-now-indefblocked user's) userpage. It simply feels like grave-dancing, and I've literally never had use for a sockmaster tag throughout all the years I've clerked and checkusered at SPI. Sockpuppet tags, sure, but never the master.
If we absolutely must swing our proverbial dicks in his face, the least we could do is leave the rest of the page up rather than try to erase everything productive that he did. It is of no benefit to anyone to hide the lists of articles he wrote.
Obviously, my vote is meaningless when compared against everyone else, but I still wanted to make my statement.
For the record, I was the admin who originally reverted the tagging back in September.
In any case, have a great evening,
Brian Phillips
For clarity, 1 or 2 other functionaries did oppose after I commented. The "lone voice of dissent" comment was because until that point nobody was opposed.
I do not believe that Ivanvector intended for a discussion on the list—I think he was just trying to bring attention to something that might interest functionaries, and then it got turned into a vote. I agree that discussions like this should not happen behind closed doors. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, it should probably also be noted that you sent that five hours after Primefac restored the tags. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Correct. Personally, I think that the entire thread should simply be copied on-wiki, but I obviously won't be posting other users' emails without permission. This whole discussion should probably be moved somewhere better than Eric's talkpage, but I'm unsure of where that location should be. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't yet commented on the func-l thread, and probably won't (mainly for time reasons, but also I prefer public discussions where possible). Having read the entire thread, I think it's fair to say that no functionary particularly wants the discussion to happen on the mailing list, nor do they want to hold some kind of supervote over any consensus held here or any other relevant community forum. There are actually discussions afoot as I write this to properly move it off the mailing list.
My own view, as a checkuser, is mainly a response to something raised in several places: "we usually do that" is never a valid reason for anything. Instead I usually recursively ask for the purpose. The sockpuppet tag's primary purpose is to provide links to the categories and SPI in order to facilitate identification of further sockpuppets (incidentally this does not apply in the case of Od Mishehu). If there's no further sockpuppets, then it's not useful. Given there have been two (I think) sockpuppets active recently, it's probably not an irrelevant tag at this time. I don't see any need to remove the other content from the page. Among many other reasons, in many cases it can actually be useful to identify further sockpuppets. But I think it's also useful historical information for other reasons. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I have modified Eric's user page to restore the original content, while keeping the required tags for the Arbcom block and socking. I believe that the above community discussion establishes a strong consensus for these actions. I attempted to close this discussion but was reverted by User:Mr Ernie because apparently he believes that I shouldn't be the one making such changes. I'm not sure I fully understand that, but that's fine. I just thought I'd post a message here letting you know that there is no further need to discuss this here, but I guess you can continue discussing it with Mr Ernie if you really want to. Cheers. ‑Scottywong| [speak] ||22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you today for your share for Bramshill House, "one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college."! - I am happy to share the page with a modest DYK about a singer who impressed me. In celebratary mood today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome for the thanks on my talk, but I had very little to do with the expansion after the start. Thank you for thanking Eric, who I believe had most to do with it. I'd actually thought it had already been TFA, but apparently only DYK. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
What they said. I half expect some numpty snowflake - like one or two of those currently at ACE - to come along shortly and delete this thread out of sheer embarrassment. CassiantoTalk18:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Eric if you are still lingering here like the ghost of Christmas past, would you mind taking a look Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, if you could just email me the corrected text, Ill paste it in and credit you in the summary. It’s so tiresome when we have Arbs banning people who are writing the project. It does show a certain lack of respect for the project’s content. I’ll keep a close eye on my inbox. Giano(talk)18:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
