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.
You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of ArbCom. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.
Well, any of the current committee whose place is up for renewal in a couple of months' time should think long and hard about whether they want to embarrass themselves further. Toadies, the lot of you. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Shameful. Have the guts to do your ban discussions in public. You knew a lot of us would oppose such an action and did your best to circumvent it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Can't even do a simple thing right, such as post the decision then block. Thus causing even more confusion than they usually do. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
We sincerely apologise for the 18 minute delay and any distress it may have caused to very attentive talk page stalkers. – Joe (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Then you have no right being an arbitrator. If admins are meant to be held to a higher standard than us mere mortals, then arbs should be higher still. Appalling attitude. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for the sarcasm. That wasn't called for. But we are all held to the same conduct standards, and I don't think comments like Toadies, the lot of you and Can't even do a simple thing right meet that standard. We're carrying out the role the community has given us to the best of our ability. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe RoeToadies was a misunderstanding in this instance caused directly by the incompetence of the committee that I referred to after Mkdw's next post on this page - if the committee had done things in the right order, I may not have said what I did. ArbCom are responsible for the entire fustercluck, as they are with the mess that is now Fram, as they were with the 2FA announcement, as they were in giving Fae another chance to continue their drama-mongering, and so on. I know it is common for people over the years to say "this is the worst ArbCom ever" but (a) I've never said it before this year and (b) it is. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh for Heaven’s sake! I doubt the Arbcom had anything really to do with this Draconian action, far more likely the Arbcom is itself just a puppet passing on an order from the dreaded “WMF,” that sinister collection of overpaid anonymities. Have we all forgotten so soon how they now lurk waiting to pounce like creatures from some second-rate, 19th century melodrama set in Whitechapel? If Eric has been commanding a huge army of seriously abusive socks then ban him, but trying to deny his valuable contribution is nothing short of demeaning to the project. Giano(talk)19:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I see dear old Joe has now created a whole brand new category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eric Corbett, which has just a dismal two entries, one of which was never a secret anyway. So disappointingly minuscule, it must be Wikipedia’s smallest category. Perhaps if Joe is in an industrious category-creating mindset, he might like to create Category:Wikipedia articles created by Eric Corbett, I’m sure he’d find that far more fulfilling and useful. Not to mention, it would be one of Wikipedia’s largest categories. However, that wouldn’t be quite the advert for Eric the WMF and Arbs are anxious to create and project, would it? The stench currently here of puritanical Southern American church going folk with all their morals, manners and hypocrisy is suffocating. Giano(talk)17:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
With Joe Roe, at least, you're about 10,000 miles out (this isn't outing, before anyone tries to claim it is). "Southern American" is unfair, as while the South is deeply conservative it also has a culture of keeping your nose out of other people's business which is pretty much the antithesis of the prim tutting we're seeing here; that kind of self-important pseudo-moralizing is very much a phenomenon of New England and Berkeley. ‑ Iridescent18:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Geography never was my strongest suit, so I’ve struck the location and I wasn’t thinking specifically of Joe, more the current climate in general. Giano(talk)18:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
These categories are automatically created and populated by the {{sockpuppet}} template which is routinely used to mark sockpuppet accounts. It should not be a surprise that the same rules and processes that apply to everybody else also apply to Eric.
Well, at least, that will be one less thunderbolt for us all to worry about. However, whether you agree or not, you created the category. Now, why not make a real effort and make a category of the pages he wrote or is content not something you like to celebrate? Giano(talk)20:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Beauty like this. He didn't "create" many articles (50), but polished to high quality. (With arbitration, you have to be precise. I was told that I didn't "create" an article - even if I wrote 95% of the content - if I not also had turned a red link blue.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett (talk·contribs), since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. Eric Corbett's accounts are hereby indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the case request involving Eric Corbett, which has been accepted by majority vote, will be closed.
Why have you seen fit to remove the list of his contributions, achievements etc. from his user page? To obscure the record of his monumental contributions to Wikipedia made over many years is vindictive and shameful. "Disappearing" people who have transgessed the rules is the sort of behaviour I expect from the worst kinds of dictatorship - not from a website that supposedly champions free speech. Richerman(talk)15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This places ceased being an encyclopaedia a long time ago. Now, it's just a place where a bunch of silly snowflakes hang out and virtue signal to other libtards silly snowflakes. CassiantoTalk16:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That would have been a great insult in middle school. I’d suggest you take a break for a few hours rather than say something you might regret. ToaNidhiki0517:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Removing evidence of Eric Corbett’s monumentally productive contributions to this project is nothing more than shabby, loathsome and small minded behaviour executed by people whose content contribution is Lilliputian by comparison. Mr Corbett had his faults (don’t we all?), but trying to hide his sterling work is beneath us all, and shames us all. If you have even the weakest of magnets in your moral compass, you should at least restore these. Giano(talk)17:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks User:Giano for restoring it ....., If we were talking about a cockwomble with 2 vandal edits then sure but Eric's been here since 2013 (2007 with other acc) so therefore regardless of his blocking his work should still be shown and appreciated. –Dave | Davey2010Talk17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Eric, I don't think we ever 'met', but I have seen you around a lot. I am also sorry to see this. It is saddening to see that those same arbitrators that keep reminding us that we have to lead by example and that we have to de-escalate situations insist to yield the banhammer in this way. This is not going to end well. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.
Eric, outcast, as you probably know, this design was created by a user who left Wikipedia the same year, frustrated, creating socks to make the Point that he had to be banned. You were the first to oppose a ban, and I remember, and thank you. Looks almost as if you did the same ;) - Thank you for teaching me ("keep your chin up") and helping me (Andreas Scholl wouldn't be what it is without you, and we just performed with his sister). Visit my talk today, for more music, destruction, wild flowers (meadow saffron) for your wife, and the quote of what an unforgotten user said to my friend who created the signature image of the cabal of the outcasts: "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I said it a few weeks ago and I'll say it again - Thank you for everything you've done for this project, Thank you for the hard work you've put in to articles as well as with FAs, Without you this place will now be worse off. –Dave | Davey2010Talk17:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Without transparent proof, I simply don’t believe that. I know there’s some sort of nasty cull going on, but I hadn’t believed you all would stoop so low. May you get the editors you deserve from this. User:Kafka Liza girl is no one23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that Eric continues still to be hotly discussed around the site. I can’t be arsed to keep adding my ten cents worth to each conversation. However, I see that see at this diff,EEng has compared the much mourned Mr Corbett’s departure to that of Nunez in HG Wells's short story "In the Country of the Blind".
Interestingly, Wells actually wrote two different endings to the story. Wells’ alternative is, I feel, prophetic when applied to Wikipedia: "In the revised and expanded 1939 version, Nunez sees from a distance that there is about to be a rock slide. He attempts to warn the villagers, but again they scoff at his “imagined” sight. He flees the valley during the slide, taking Medina-saroté [his beloved] with him."
I think that more accurately reflects what's happening with Wikipedia, I suspect Eric, or Nunez as I shall now think of him, would agree. It also seems very wrong to me, that some people are still proclaiming Eric’s faults to anyone sycophantic enough to listen, when they know full well Eric has no right of reply. That demeans those who make these utterances. He is gone, rejoice if you feel it appropriate, but please do so off this site. We have lost our most prolific content editor, I see little to gloat over. Giano(talk)20:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Eric Corbett had plenty of right of reply over the years; usually he chose not to use it, and instead just sulked about what a victim he was e.g. [1]. How typical that his final interaction before announcing his latest (and let us hope final) diva quit was to be a nasty snot about someone's calm explanation of something that he (E.C.) had misunderstood [2]. As for any rockslide threatening Wikipedia, Wells also predicted that WW2 would pave the way for a worldwide utopia overseen by a wise and benevolent universal government, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. EEng23:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't either, but I suppose, if your ego has been slighted by Eric, it's fun to refer to those who appreciated Eric's contributions here (from a reader's perspective) as "sycophants" or even "cult members", just like it appears to be fun to kick editors when they're down in general here on Wikipedia. ---Sluzzelintalk20:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Eric slighted my ego not at all. I used the terms sycophant and cult member because they fit the behavior. If I keep taking about him it's because people keep coming to my talkpage or (as here) pinging me in the course of singing his praises. EEng23:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that I am an Eric Corbett sycophant or a member of his cult, EEng. That being said, I think that it would be a really good idea to stop discussing him and his friends on his talk page, since he is unable to respond. Time to move on. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Those of us who appreciated his value to the project are quite happy to defend him here when required. The lack of tolerance for him shows a certain nativity. There are few universities where at least one grumpy old Don is tolerated because of his overall worth. However, here, it sometimes seemed people queued for and then welcomed a snap, as a reason to shout “me too.” I collaborated with him on several pages and we would disagree or approach from differing view points, however, we either compromised or convinced the other to change opinion. If he had a major fault, it was that he didn’t suffer fools gladly, so it seems odd that a project dedicated to education has fired the teaching professor and employed the fools. Quite how that benefits Wikipedia escapes me. Giano(talk)12:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The "grumpy old don" analogy might make sense if Eric Corbett were a renowned scholar instead of one of those broken-down frustrated Hemingways (or whatever the English equivalent would be) loved by semiliterate freshman because he taught them to avoid comma splices.The "suffer fools gladly" angle is one I feel peculiarly qualified to speak to, because – and I say this without fear of contradiction – I'm known for not suffering fools gladly myself. I've had plenty of disputes in my 12 years here at WP, and mostly worked them out amicably. Now and then I've run into a fool – a true fool, a persistent fool – and I've had to call them out when gentle explanation and persuasion failed; but that was the exception, not the rule. For Eric Corbett, though, there were only two kinds of editors: his small circle of friends, who were allowed to diffidently question him so long as they backed off obsequiously should The Master dismiss their inadequate offering; and all the others, who were instantly shit upon for daring to question him. EEng02:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It took me a long time to appreciate that what I took to be refreshing clarity- was offending others. I come from the world of innercity education where this was middle of the road behaviour and patronising obsequeciousness, which seems to be suggested here, is loathed. I can't agree that we move on- as we haven't yet started the debate. You don't ditch your most effective and brilliant editor and pretend that WP can carry on without resolving the cause of the asassination. ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
your most effective and brilliant editor – I'll say it one more time, at which point I'll have milked it dry: In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.EEng02:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with talking about Eric and the good he did for this failing project, here. After all, there are plenty of places where Eric is spoken about in a negative context, and they remain open until every troll has had their say. One such place is here where the same trolls who beat him off of the project still seem unable to shut the hell up about him. It seems odd, but not altogether surprising, that we're happy for the negative threads to remain open, but want to quickly close those that highlight the good he did. CassiantoTalk13:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto has hit the nail on the head. I believe to a certain extent that the cause of the assassination was less to to with a testy snap at an obviously stupid comment (although they provided the excuse) and more to do with his steadfast refusal to give deference to the career admins, arbs and pontificators who monopolise ANI and the policy pages, but have never written two pages worth reading in their lives. It is they who were judge, jury and executioner, rather than the cowering, timid and terrified little newbies of popular imagination; and it’s they who want to shut down all positive comment regarding Eric. Giano(talk)
I don't see anyone shutting anything down. The project joins you in your celebration of his magnificent victimhood. EEng02:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll continue to celebrate and defend Eric's work wherever and whenever I can. He helped me become a better editor, helped our GA and FA processes immensely, and his worth to the project is immeasurable. I can only hope that 10–20 editors who impugned his work, trolled him, and delighted over his sanctions can manage to pile themselves together and make half the editor he is. Makes me sick. --Laser brain(talk)13:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
During his many long years of service to this project, Eric was at times controversial and never dull, so it’s good to have all opinions on his page. However, rejoicing in the loss of a very productive editor is hard to comprehend. I don’t believe he drove newbies away or the weak and the timid. Without exception, all those he argued and debated with seem to have had very strong, robust voices indeed. In fact, many of them came here just for that debate and then complained (healthily and vociferously) when they received it. He was frequently trolled; if he had a big fault, it’s that he often fed the trolls when he should have laughed and walked away. Giano(talk)18:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Note:
Yesterday I noticed a lot of bickering on Eric's page and did a WP:RFPP to protect. The protection was done, and I emailed Eric to inform him. He has requested that the protection be lifted. I first went to the protecting admins. talk page - but he seems to be AFK right now, so I unprotected per user request. Note also that page protection was not something included in the arbcom block. I apologize to all for the inconvenience. — Ched (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh - and I do not think I was wrong in requesting protection, but I do believe that Eric should have the final say in how his user and talk page are to exist (within reason) — Ched (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
