Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Despair (alt: Piss off)

I have been following this page for some years with an increasing feeling of despair. What are we doing in WP? I thought we were writing an encyclopaedia of immense importance to its users. What do I see? Silly arguments (IMO) based on political correctness, pride, and personal selfish perceptions. A phenomenal waste of time and energy that could (and should (IMO)) be spent on writing content. Am I a FAN of Eric? No; IMO he gets involved in a lot of stuff that is peripheral to content. But I am a USER of Eric? I sure am, as are many editors like myself, who have USED him to improve their work, and to raise it to good and featured levels. So what do we do when he disagrees with other editors; when he uses words that are perceived as rude, offensive, or otherwise unacceptable? Block him, then block him, then block him again. And what good does that do to what most of us are trying to achieve ... to write an encyclopaedia? Perhaps those who get involved are not capable of writing content, but amuse themselves in peripheral stuff like goading Eric. I suggest you use your energy elsewhere. Leave us content providers alone to get on with the core business of writing a project of immense importance. In other words, piss off, and leave us content providers alone. Now block me too! Cheers to all content writers. (any comments, Jimbo?) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur that there is a serious disconnect between the content creators and the drama-mongers who haunt the various "drama boards." That said, please don't belittle people's sincerely held beliefs as "political correctness," as one person's "PC" is another person's serious issue. There is a major difference between US and UK editors on these issues. That said, I'm with you on pride and self-perception. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Some UK and some US. There is at least one in the GGTF fold who claims to be from Manchester; there are several self-declared women I know of from the US who simply have no truck with the drama-mongers who frequent and/or sympathise with that aspect of the "PC", which is at the heart of the present Ae/ArbCom kerfuffle. I agree that it does seem in large part to be a cultural divide, and I'm afraid that the US will "win" for various reasons related to systemic bias, but it is by no means a clear cut situation. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but the very term "politically correct" is basically a bludgeon that is used by conservatives to attack liberals, and seldom the other way around. It is often used to justify racism, sexism, and flat-out bullying. When someone suggests that a behavior or phrase is not appropriate, they are shut down by being accused of "being PC." Now, you know that I generally support Eric in spite of his significant lack of "PC" because I understand that he just can't resist poking at the pretentious. But that doesn't mean that normally we shouldn't at least clear our throats and say, "ahem, it would be wise to rephrase that." And I've said as much to Eric from time to time. But I say it with respect because I realize that there are issues of ethnicity and culture that differentiate him from me.(I linked to the Confederate flag issue as an example in this thread because it's one where people who suggest it not be displayed as a symbol of southern heritage have frequently been accused of being oversensitive and being "politically correct," but recent events have changed a lot of minds...) Montanabw(talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank goodness I've missed this Peter, but catching up it seems the one of easily offended has indulged in yet another round of spiteful, playground finger-pointing leading to hours of wasted time and effort and drama. Looking for trouble isn't the way to improve the encyclopedia or close the gender gap, quite the opposite. These women and their pc supporters don't encourage me to contribute and are more likely to drive me away. Like Peter I have relied on Eric for help, which has always been freely and generously given and I haven't seen such petty spitefulness from any of the men I've worked with although I can see there are several who carry enormous grudges. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the delights in working on WP is that you are always learning something new. I find the difference between PC in US and UK fascinating. In UK I perceive PC to mean what "they" (the media in all their manifestations) say, which is usually fashionable and often transient. The trouble is that facts and truths are distorted and misrepresented. And lives can be destroyed by this. This recently happened in UK to a distinguished Nobel laureate who said nothing that was factually inaccurate but he lost his position and, effectively, his reputation. That's the sort of thing to which I referred in my initial comment above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're a gentleman Peter, and one who is entirely focused on building content, I wish others here would take a leaf out of your book. Your prolific work here is incredible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sooo serious.. What next, Corbett v Corbett? - about gender issues funnily enough too :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You're American Dennis, it wasn't intended either way, and if you were British you would have realised that. I think that's part of the problem on here actually, what isn't offensive or humourous in the UK might be perceived differently over the pond. I'm sure Ritchie also didn't intend to antagonize. Seriously, people take themselves way too seriously around here, this is far too intense at times, we need some comic relief.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I trust you Dr. B, and would like to think I have a respectable sense of humor. Who I don't trust is all the other people reacting to Eric's reaction and might want to call it a 2nd hand violation. On the whole, the admin corp has lost its collective mind over the last week, and I haven't seen proof that sanity has been restored, so perhaps I'm a bit overcautious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not just Eric now, Cassianto is being treated in exactly the same way..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I blocked some editor who was being abusive to him just the other day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Cassianto was polite enough to write an edit summary undoing a stereotype message that many received, including me, - he can't roll-back. I got the same message a while ago, also several others, - helpful people reverted it for me, so I wasn't in danger to say something nasty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Folks are waiting here for you

Folks waiting
Arctocephalus pusillus Hifspajen (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If...

...Eric really has permanently retired, as he said he would, we have a slight problem. Since many people watch this page, it seems to be commonly used by content creators to discuss articles and obtain ideas from other editors, and there is not really another page that serves the same function. Seeing that it would be quite inconsiderate to continue using a retired user's talk page in such a manner, I wonder what, if any, replacement there will be? --Biblioworm 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the perennial questions. I wanted to find a former discussion, looked for my name and was highly amused ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway: something you didn't want, Eric, so let's please watch on 19 July, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well content building doesn't really matter now. Content builders have served their purpose and built the encyclopedia to where it is. Personally, I think it's not even one-third complete in the areas I contribute to, or would contribute if building content hadn't become so demeaning. But the take-over of Wikipedia by non-content-building admin wannabe grandees and social busybodies pushing their agendas is now pretty complete, while Wales is achieving his noble populist ambition to purge articulate content builders who point out how things are. Perhaps Wales and GorillaWarfare could personally take over and set the new editorial standards that are now suitable for Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope Eric hasn't retired. As for his talk page: people will find another venue, should Eric stay away (but his talk page ceasing to be the place for discussion of articles appears minor in comparison to losing his activities at WP. I am truly sorry you have been and are being treated this way, Eric. Readers will miss you, that's for sure). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Eric didn't say he was retiring, only that he would if the block expired. The block was lifted. And he's no longer a primary at arb. But I'm sure he likes to sit it out since history has shown how things can morph out of control at arb. IHTS (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, people take themselves way too seriously around here, this is far too intense at times, we need some comic relief.♦ Dr. Blofeld This is exactly the way I feel when editors talk about the persecution of content creators. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you focused more on writing content you might feel differently. But you are right... it's best regarded as a (really bad) joke. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a really bad joke that one uses to laugh at, because otherwise, you'd be screaming with some other emotion.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't take myself seriously at all within this labyrinth named Wikipedia, but I do take the encyclopedia part seriously. I read it daily, and I take those editors seriously who invest their time, brain, and energy to improve it for the benefit of readers such as myself. So I guess that's how I feel about it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
If there's not persecution, there are certainly other difficulties. I do not claim to be some prolific content creator, since that would be something of an insult to those who have really done a great deal of content work (what match are my two short GAs for those editors who can legitimately claim credit for dozens of FAs?), but anyone with a bit of content experience will know about the work that comes with it, such as finding good sources, knowing how to summarize and combine all the sources into one article, being careful to use as much original wording as possible, etc. I do not hold "vandal fighters" or "gnomes" in contempt, because I recognize that they also have a very important role in the proper functioning of Wikipedia. The final conclusion that must be drawn is that every "type" of editor is important (e.g., without dedicated vandal fighters, each individual creator or major contributor to any given article would have to monitor and individually revert the vandalism themselves), but there still persists the undeniable fact that Wikipedia would never have arrived at its current state had it not been for content workers. --Biblioworm 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting comment from this admin, explains a lot. I can see why somebody with no content work to speak of would think that, but content creators also remove vandalism, copyedit and perform gnomish tasks. Most of the heated stuff starts about content but you only discover that when you've actually written something. Collaboration is important for content writers, that's why Eric is so valued. It's really easy to visit talk pages supplying all and sundry with your particular brand of wisdom, but not so easy to write something the public might want to read. J3Mrs (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're referring to me, J3Mrs, but I do recognize that content creators revert vandalism and do gnomish work. (As a sort of side note, I believe that copy editing is content work, so therefore a copy editor is a content worker.) All I'm saying is that it would be quite a bit more difficult were it not for those users who are dedicated gnomes or anti-vandals. The point of my comment was that although all users have an important role, content workers are ultimately the heart and soul of Wikipedia, and seem to be unfortunately less recognized than they should be. --Biblioworm 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No I wasn't referring to you Biblioworm. J3Mrs (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt he's retired, but he may be taking a wikibreak, he's done so in the past. Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just about to return to the UK from China for an extended and indefinite period, and some friends mentioned that I would then be able to use up some of my time so I could write content for wikipedia again (given that all my local history books remain in the UK). Because of all the shenanigans that have been almost continually happening on this place, I really will find it hard to work up any enthusiasm for doing so. If I were the focus of some of what has happened, including talk page stalkers whose only reason to watch this page seems so that they can be ready to pounce on any infringement of an almost all-encompassing restriction and report it, then I would seriously think of running away for a long time. It amounts to a kind of harassment in itself by gaming AE, and I am surprised no one raised this more forcefully recently (though I guess being able to apply the letter of AE restrictions, rather than use discretion, which we are allowed, overcame this.) Harassment can never be justified.

People need to think more of that Nietzsche quote, a version of which reads in English: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process they do not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." What I have seen recently is that otherwise reasonable people have pursued what they think are monsters, and have become monsters themselves using a system that has become monstrously dysfunctional.

Most of this could be avoided if people solely dealt with content. I hope Eric stays away for a long holiday, not because I want him off wikipedia (far from it, I want him here doing more content work), but for his sake and the fact that he probably needs a rest from all of this excessive political zeal. As for a venue for discussing matters concerned with writing content, I see no reason to change away from this unless Eric doesn't want it any more, or until he gives a clear message that he has retired.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes... Nietzsche hacking at the quick of the matter. Still, the battle for a fair deal for content builders on Wikipedia, if there ever was a real battle, has been lost. Admin wannabe grandees gather as the darkness grows... their time has come. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm bemused by Liz's comment above. A look at her(presumably? do correct me if I'm wrong) contributions makes me wonder how much she knows about the efforts of content creators,[1] although it might well be that she has been around long enough to have some idea; but comparing her selection of "wise words" on her talk page with her monthly stats,[2] I can't help but think she has got to a point where she picks her fights.[3] Which wouldn't be at all helpful. As an aside, I wonder why she maintains an alternate account, legitimate though it seems, since it hasn't been used to make any edits in over 18 months at the time of writing.[4] Bemused though I am, I agree with pretty much everything else in this thread. Nortonius (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Some of you have no doubt heard the rumble that I'm contemplating a RfA, I may have mentioned it here previously. Some people have been supportive and encouraging - most along the lines that I'm well-qualified and that I'm the sort of editor (a content creator with nine years' experience) that ought to have the mop, but others have discouraged me with one of the following reasons, basically, 1) "are you nuts? The job sucks!" and 2) that I have made enemies and detractors over the years who would show up in droves to derail my nomination (basically, I'm rather stubborn, at times snarky, and hate to walk away from a fight) or 3) That I haven't spent enough time at the drama boards (my contributions are still over 55% to articles). Yet others have said, basically, "yeah, you can be a snarky bitch, but I won't oppose you." To the point, Eric has advised me not to do so, mostly for reason #2. Thoughts? Should someone like me try to get the mop? Would it be a useful experiment? More to the point, as an RfA candidate really can't answer every accusation without looking like a tentendious lunatic, how many people would actually challenge the usual trolls who are guaranteed to show up? Montanabw(talk) 16:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You called me a Randy and a bully, when I objected to your friend Ched insidiously calling me a narcissist. You back your friends no matter how dirty the method. IHTS (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Some people would be very pleased to be called narcissists, particularly those who are ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've hardly been following your every move around here, Montanabw, any more than I've been following anyone else's. But from what I've seen you're dedicated to content and have your head screwed on pretty firmly. I'd like to see someone like that getting adminship. On the other hand, I haven't been on the receiving end of any "snarkiness" that I recall, so I don't know how I'd feel if I had – but given Eric's example of someone who often knows best and just speaks his mind, yet gets hounded off the project as a "serial troll", I'm guessing it shouldn't make much difference. I intend that as tentative encouragement, but yes I'm aware of the cons in RfA, and adminship, and am generally too nervous of dramah myself to do much more than offer that. Though I do find myself speaking my mind too from time to time. Hope that helps, for what it's worth. Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
There are already some very good admins, Montanabw. Occasionally they inject some sanity into admin proceedings, but otherwise what real difference can they make? It's the way the system is structured that is wrong, and that will not change if you become an admin. Good admins are as vulnerable to attack by the system as are good content builders. The system is now wholly controlled by admins as a group and their retinues, and the idea that their proceedings are based on some general "community consensus" is absurd. Of necessity their main defensive strategy must be, and consequently is, to ignore and refuse to respond to rational criticism. You have yourself in the past been guilty of rational criticism of the system. What makes you think admins as a group will now allow you to be one of them? Remember the importance of the "trust of the community". (To have the "trust of the community" means that the admin community trusts you will never approve of anything that might diminish its powers) --Epipelagic (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have some good on-wiki friends who are admins, ... seems we need more of that ilk. But no question I have "guilty of rational criticism of the system." And yeah, those I've snarked at will oppose my RfA, most surely. "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." (attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt).  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Duh. (As if it doesn't make any difference how you made them!) IHTS (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Count me as a support if you decide to let someone run an RFA for you. The RFA might be a bit tough, but my prediction is that you'd pass with 100+ supports.

I was an admin here for 6 months in 2013, and am currently the most active admin on Commons. I think the best thing about adminship is that you can address issues and problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. If a page needs protecting or a vandal needs to be blocked you've got the tools; if a page needs to be deleted or undeleted, you can take care of it. I never once went to any AN board in my 6 months as an admin here, so it's definitely not a prerequisite.

You can help a lot of people as an admin, and it's pretty rewarding when someone thanks you for protecting an article they're working on, getting a vandal or sock/stalker off their back, etc. I think you'd enjoy having the extra tools once you saw how much more you can do. You decide what kind of admin to be. There are plenty of good admins who care about the project and about editors here. INeverCry 07:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how we have so many admins, and so many who are eager to pounce on eg Eric for saying a naughty word, block button primed, but getting them to deal with genuine disruption (edit warriors, passive-aggressive trolls etc.) can often turn into a test of endurance. Cassianto is blocked for a week, talk page access revoked, for telling a vandal to fuck off, but persuading an admin to deal with someone (baselessly) labelling a BLP subject as "racist scum"..? Meh, who cares, look the other way, or watch Eric's talk page in case someone mentions GGTF... Too many of our admins are simply not fit for rôle. Keri (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You nailed it, Keri, BLP issues are very important places for admins to have the mop ready, yet, it's far easier to patrol for bad words. People get playground sanctions for using bad words and yet the most pain is often inflicted by those who couch their cruelty behind language that doesn't trigger any automated filter. One problem is that, no doubt, the consensus model for granting the mop means that 1/3 of the !voters can troll the site and blast down people who have actually had opinions. Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I for one am trying to look at my own interactions with Eric to learn from. I can't blame others for my mistakes on talk pages and content criticism is far more appreciated, even if there are "bad words" used, than personal attacks. We all have some level of what we can put up with. There can be a good amount of obstacles one has to deal with just to add referenced, logical content to an article then and you still have to deal with a barrage of personal attacks from editors who find that easier than defending their weak ass interpretations of sources. There. I said it. Beat me about the head with a trout. I probably deserve it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
  • Putting aside any blame (which would serve no purpose, let the Arb case deal with that), the simple fact that amnesty was given would mean that the block and unblock log entries would be eligible to be expunged from Eric's block log. That is what amnesty is, after all, a pardon without regard to the merits, removing or discontinuing all "punishment" related to the event. I've never used it, and won't here, but I think that block entries can be RevDel'ed now, can't they? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

Hi Eric Corbett, in the open Lightbreather arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

An article you got to GA appeared on the Citation Needed show

Just thought you might find this interesting since you got Boobrie to GA. [5] Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy relates to you:

6A) All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
  1. Mike Searson (one-way)
  2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
  3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
  4. Sitush (one-way)
  5. Scalhotrod (two-way)

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Donner Party article

Hey guy, another editor suggested that if you weren't responding on the article Talk page it's best to go to your personal page, so here I am! So - what's the deal with reverting my addition of the "240 km" bit? It seems important to remind people that the supposed shortcut was actually longer than route they were supposed to take. I know it's mentioned in a caption, but shouldn't it also be part of the main text, particularly as people seem to be making the mistake of thinking that it was shorter, when actually it was longer? If there's some sort of mistake I'm making that necessitates the removal of the information, you should probably let me know what that mistake is, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My name isn't Guy. Eric Corbett 21:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I know, dude, that's why it wasn't capitalized. So, Eric, you going to answer my questions and help me out, be a productive member of the community, etc. or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Tough choice, but I think I'll go for "or what". Eric Corbett 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly Mr Corbett is not productive in an encyclopedia :P Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious

The Precious

Thank you (and Drmies) for creating Today's Featured Article, The Coral Island, an article which Jimbo and co will no doubt take for granted, knowing little about how much work it entails promoting content on here. I wish we could deport a lot of the others here on a ship and leave stranded on a Pacific island!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything we do here is either taken for granted or punished. Eric Corbett 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It's always nice to see something you've worked be Today's Featured Article. There's a few of us that still put the content creators at the top of the food chain. Nick (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It is nice, I agree, but I'm always a bit ambivalent towards TFA. In fact, unless I felt really passionately about it, I'd oppose any such TFA request made in my absence and/or on my behalf. Most of the editors who pitch up just do so to bastardise all the hard work that went on before it. CassiantoTalk 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Which one might I have an interest in? Eric Corbett 12:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This one. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. We do have a more specific template.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

GA/FA query

I apologise for the almighty mess I've helped create above, and if anybody other than Eric reads this, I hope they do the same relaxation exercises I have performed this morning.

Eric, I'd visited your talk page originally to ask about an article I've written. It's not quite finished, but I know you're generally busy (though I don't know how things stand right now) and wondered if you could take a look in due course and see where you think the article is at in terms of GA (or an outside chance of FA, I don't know). It's currently at User:Nick/sandbox/11 needing a small amount of the personal information finished off and the remaining references added. Any help you could provide would, as usual, be most appreciated. Nick (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for me to take a look at it. Eric Corbett 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. One really weird question - you don't know of any sources to confirm recipients of honours issued by Lebanon in the mid 1950s ? I think Who Was Who might be wrong but can't confirm. Many Thanks Nick (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't, but I can think of no plausible reason why an accountant working for BOAC in the UK would be awarded Lebanon's second-highest honour, so I'd dump that unless you can find another decent source. Eric Corbett 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason is tied up with his BOAC work, his advocacy of buying the dH Comet and in this case because I believe he was instrumental in making the refuelling stop on the London-South Africa service to be in Beirut, thus giving the Lebanon a rather higher profile in the early days of the jet age. Don't underestimate him as an "accountant" either, he had some very good strings that he was adept at pulling. You might find Flight (who have an excellent on-line archive) a good place to search. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess that's a possibility. Eric Corbett 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, I've been though the Flight archive (and used it extensively) but could find nothing. There's a bit in Basil's autobiography about the Beirut fuelling stop, but nothing about an honour, mind you, his knighthood in the UK only gets a couple of sentences. I'm with you, it makes sense, but I'd just like a bit more confirmation or a contemporary report from somewhere. Nick (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If I've read this somewhere, it would have been from the engineering history, probably of the jet engines. I've just scanned through Hooker's biography but couldn't see it in there. Maybe one of the R-R Heritage Trust monographs. I have a colleague called Preist, so it's a name that tends to catch my eye with that spelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley just a quick note - doing a bit of re-reading and a bit of digging - BOAC moved from Egypt to Lebanon in January 1952, after BOAC's offices in Cairo were torched during the prelude to the 1952 revolution. I had a moment of clarity and checked BOAC's Miles Thomas Who Was Who entry, and he's listed as Comdr of Cedar of the Lebanon, Lebanon, so I'd have to guess both he and Smallpeice were honoured at the same time for moving BOAC's base of operations in the Middle East to Lebanon. Nick (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley. Please don't post here again. If you want to continue this discussion then do it elsewhere. Eric Corbett 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clever buggers

Dear Eric, please accept my apologies for very cheekily hijacking your page for my own ends. I know that you and many of our esteemed colleagues who regularly visit this venue for non-nefarious purposes have access to multiple journals; I wonder if any of you clever buggers are able to acquire an article for me? Keri (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Erfani-Ghettani, Ryan (March 2015). "The defamation of Joy Gardner: press, police and black deaths in custody". Race & Class. 56 (3). Institute of Race Relations: 102–112. doi:10.1177/0306396814556228.

(talk page stalker) Dunno about the cleverness or buggery but I've got it for you. Taking this to your Talk. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric's army: the gift that never stops giving :D Keri (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. 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. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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."

So what do you think this will achieve? Eric Corbett 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I would bring to your attention the fact that Keilana is Kevin Gorman's 'appointed' point of contact when he is absent from the site, which raises a concern that Keilana is not sufficiently uninvolved to be taking administrative action in this case. Please refer to User:Kevin Gorman for his statement. I've removed a bit of text which a couple of people found insensitive of me Nick (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't the case ongoing about not enough discussion? Irony abounds, at any rate the civility police probably have a technical violation here, not that it actually hurt anything. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keilana, on what civility-based blocks achieve (from 2012 Civility Enforcement Questionnaire):
What sanctions, if any, do you think are appropriate for incivility? Should blocking be considered an appropriate response to incivility? Should topic banning or interaction banning be considered an appropriate response?
  • Reply: Civility blocks suck. They're often punitive and just serve to make the uncivil, pissed off person more angry and likely to unleash a torrent of profanity. An interaction ban is a better response. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC) addition: I think that iBans and topic bans are a more productive solution because they help to keep someone who may be volatile out of a situation that will cause them to be uncivil. I firmly believe that blocks should only be used to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and that an incident of incivility that may or may not be repeated isn't enough to warrant a block in the vast majority of situations. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
IHTS (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
From Keilana's user page: "I don't use the tools much anymore. [...] To be honest, I hardly ever use my admin bit anymore because there's just so much content to write." IHTS (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is EXACTLY why AE is arb right now, in many respects. This was a bad block Keilana, plenty of admin opined as such except for Kevin Gorman, whose bizarre behavior over the last couple of months (not just regarding Eric) raises serious questions about his competency to be an admin to begin with. I agree with Nick, that Kevin's involvement with Eric is such that it borders on harassment and abuse, and if it continues, I will file at Arb myself. The statements that Eric was blocked for are about as mild as what he was just granted amnesty for. Eric's description of Kaldari was quite mild, many of us consider him a jackass. This needs review, and maybe by Arb as they are already reviewing similar. To block a prolific editor for a mild comment against someone who was guilty of egregious policy violations AGAINST Eric, and whose outwiki actively turns the stomach of anyone with any degree of morals, this is not what policy is designed to protect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see this block, Eric. I'm not going to get involved here, but I would support a swift unblocking. It's absolutely ridiculous. c1cada (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow...yet another unilateral block based on an AE report yet this one while an arb case about this very issue is ongoing.--MONGO 02:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the AE filing and the context it provides, it's clear that the user currently blocked is under an arbitration remedy specifically intended to rein in the behaviour exhibited here. Was the Arbitration Committee in error last year when it crafted this remedy?

I find the numerous intemperate attacks on the filing user particularly difficult to understand. A quick scan of this user talk page's recent history, and another of the history of WP:AE doesn't seem to bear out the notion that Kevin Gorman has made a habit of filing inappropriate AE cases against Eric Corbett. The current one doesn't seem inappropriate either, given the poisonous nature of the comments.

Am I missing some context that would make sense of this fuss? --TS 03:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

EC has civility stalkers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm just curious, who would Wikipedia rather have, someone who does a really good job with content, or someone who runs a fake snuff site after he used a sock to harass an editor. And who, inexplicably, is still employed by WMF? GregJackP Boomer! 03:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not an either or. -- KTC (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but the comment enforcement was a bit to much like Javert for my tastes. GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Eric has a civility arbitration remedy. Somebody who files at AE for a flagrantly abusive comment by an editor under such a remedy surely isn't "stalking". They're helping the admins to do the job the arbitration committee has tasked them with. Do you not agree that this is how arbitration enforcement is supposed to work? --TS 03:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with the history and complainants. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Tony, we have a case about this exact issue over at arbcom right now. Who there is gunning hardest against Eric's editing future?--MONGO 03:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Tony, you have an editor who was calling for Eric to be hung, drawn, and quartered at ArbCom who files the AE (over a relatively minor comment) and an apparent close friend of the complaining editor closes the AE and blocks only 2-1/2 hours after it was open and while the only admin comment was calling for a WP:BOOMARANG on Kevin for harassment of Eric. So, no, I don't agree that this is how it is supposed to work. GregJackP Boomer! 03:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll respond to MONGO first: as I understand it, the case in question specifically excludes Eric Corbett.
Hell in a Bucket, I looked over the findings of fact in the arbitration case cited by the AE filer. So last year's arbitration committee seemed to have a pretty good idea about the facts. Do you think you have enough contrary evidence to nullify the remedy? If so, I'd advise you to raise that evidence to the attention of Arbcom and ask them to reverse the remedy. If not I don't think anybody can reasonably object to people bringing egregious incidents like this to the attention of the enforcers.
GregJackP it's conceivable that there is some back story here that I'm unaware of. However Eric's comment does look particularly toxic to me. --TS 03:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep digging. That case was a clusterfucked events, wouldn't put too much stock in it but hey i fyou want to drink that kool aid up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Tony, it may be that I have seen too many actual dead bodies (way too many of them) for me to be amused by someone running a site like Kaldari ran, and who has also harassed EC via socks while he was an admin. Now, he's at one of EC's friends talk pages harassing her over an image that he wanted to get deleted at Commons (and apparently succeeded), and that's when EC made his comments. Did he technically violate his restriction? Probably, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone who has been calling for EC to basically be lynched reports him and one of his buddies almost immediately blocks him. I've asked Keilana about it on her talk page and she basically gave a non-answer, claiming admin discretion. I currently have asked if she is open to recall and will follow up on that when I get a response. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Keilana is open to recall. The process to do so is linked on her userpage.--MONGO 05:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I must have missed it. Facepalm Facepalm GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of unsourced statements here, and it's extremely confusing.

I laid out the fact that Eric is under an arbitration remedy and that it's expected that editors will bring cases to AE in such cases. In fact it's okay to just go to any uninvolved admin, but it's more efficient to use AE because there's more chance of finding an uninvolved admin willing to spare the time checking whether the remedy has been triggered.

I asked what the problem was. Was it the remedy? Did Arbcom get it wrong last year? And I told you what you need to do if that is the case.

Now finally I'm seeing some blood-curdling claims about the filer and about the person attacked by Eric. Doesn't make any difference, doesn't justify his attacks. If we all went around interacting like that the place would be an even more unfriendly environment than it already is.

If as claimed by Nick the filer has engaged in a targeted campaign of harassment, or as claimed by you has called for him to be "lynched" those are in themselves very serious matters that you will, I assure you, either drop now or take up in dispute resolution. --TS 04:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem getting the information for you, if you ask nicely. I will not, however, respond to threats to either drop it or go to DR. You asked me to begin with, if you didn't want my answer, don't ask. Or you can find a buddy to block me. Whatever you want to do, just let me know. But you may want to consider how you ask. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, are you a new editor? The problem with the quite egregious accusations above is that they're personal attacks. If they're intended to be a summary of your case in a conduct dispute, then it's essential to good order that you pursue dispute resolution. Personal attacks are forbidden. So when I say you will either drop the attacks or pursue dispute resolution, I mean that making a choice on which path to take is imperative. Continued personal attacks with no effort at dispute resolution would certainly be blockable, for reasons I'm sure you can appreciate.

As for me, I thought I'd made it plain that I've found responses on this thread to be unsatisfactory and I don't intend to pursue the matter further at the moment. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that some kind of arbitration decision may be needed to get to the bottom of this very muddy affair. --TS 05:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, are you a new editor? Really? I created my account Nov. 21, 2006. I also don't care much for passive-aggressive behavior. If you don't intend to pursue the matter, fine. You were the one asking questions, I merely answered with what had happened. If you want to know more, I'm happy to provide diffs, etc., but you'll have to ask. Or you can take it to ANI. But don't even begin to believe that you can tell me what to do. GregJackP Boomer! 06:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I stated above that Keilana claimed on her user page that she was open to recall...but now she has marked that process as historical.--MONGO 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I just posted on her talk page, asking about that:

On your user page you currently state you are open to recall, with a link to a recall procedure. This statement was added to your user page in 2012. Today, you marked your recall process as historical and stating that it hasn't been touched since 2008 and is obsolete.

Since you still have a statement that you are open to recall on your user page, added 4 years after the process had no longer been touched, what recall process do you want us to use, since the linked one is apparently no longer valid. Thanks,

I would hate to think that she would renege on being open to recall as soon as a questionable decision came up. GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Dunno...maybe it needed updating all of a sudden for some reason?--MONGO 06:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Apparently directing it to arbcom was the response. About all I can say is add it to the workshop of the current arbcom case. I hope arbcom can come up with some ground rules as far as how AE is suppose to do things as these admin actions with no discussion by the acting admin are getting tiresome.--MONGO 07:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, folks, but just commenting that the block is down to 72 hours, so let's all just go home now. Don't go after the messengers here, I think there is more happening behind the scenes than meets the eye. (No, I don't know what, though) Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • What a bunch of incompetent buffoons we have at AE and ArbCom. I bet they're all enjoying a malt whiskey back at the admin's mess, back slapping each other into oblivion and sickeningly telling each other how well each other has done, while the rest of us suffer by not having Eric write articles. What a fucking joke! CassiantoTalk 07:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. If you think admins are a monolithic mass, then you're sadly mistaken.
    2. You were so close! Just replace "Eric" with "Keilana" and you'd have it. We're certainly suffering with every minute she takes to comment on this clear-cut block. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I have never even heard of Keilana before, so sorry to disappoint you. CassiantoTalk 07:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Keilana has been around a long time, I've talk to her plenty in the past and she seems quite nice and reasonable, so I disagree with the block, but I haven't seen any reason to comment on her character. I disagree that this is a clear cut case Ed, and in fact proven it. If you read the actual AE, and you read the actual comments, and know a bit of the history, AND if you can be objective, a warning for a borderline comment wold have been sufficient, or even overkill. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm sure that she's nice. Frankly I know what I need to know of her character now, from stating that she's open to recall, removing that option when questioned on it, then saying that ArbCom is thataway, and then after everything has died down, restoring that she's open to recall as if nothing has happened. She can be nice and pleasant, but I wouldn't buy a horse from her. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Deja vu. Same players. Frankly, stalking of user talk pages to find anything to complain about, in my own personal opinion, verges on ludophilia. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @Dennis Brown: I did read the AE and looked at exactly what Eric's restrictions are. Describing someone as a "disgusting individual" and "reptilian lowlife" pretty clearly violates "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from ... insulting and/or belittling other editors." Is this really the hill you want to make a stand on? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
          • That hill says that minor comments do not warrant blocks, that admin shouldn't be civility police, that blocking for such tiny things is pedantic and doesn't improve the encyclopedia and in fact hurts retention because it runs off specialists and quality contributors. I'm not saying Eric's comment was ideal (although at least one admin credited him with accuracy at AE). Would you have blocked me for saying what Eric said? Warned me? No. You wouldn't have blinked an eye. Using AE to block for tiny things is wrong. That is clearly inequity in how we enforce civility. So yes, I'm on the hill, and I've been here since April of 2012: that we should tolerate minor things, if for no other reason than the block is more disruptive than the initial comment.
          • And speaking of "no one would have blinked an eye", I blew Eric's comment out of the water and INTENTIONALLY called Kalderi a jackass above, INTENTIONALLY violated WP:NPA to prove a point. NO ONE COMPLAINED. Everyone saw it, it was too early and plain to see, they are just not prejudiced against me like they are Eric, so they gave it a pass. This is the SECOND time I've used this method, the other was at the Arb case, and no, no one complained and clerks didn't remove, proving my point. This isn't about poor pitiful Kalderi or even civility, it is about extracting a pound of flesh from Eric at every possible opportunity. THAT is harassment. He is no saint, and frankly a pain quite often, but all too often he gets the raw end of the deal, like here. So yes, I'm on the hill to stay when it comes to harassment, misusing AE and civility policing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, no one said anything to you because your name is not Eric Corbett. Plus, what you said was accurate, anyone that runs a website showing photos of murder victims, whether real or fake has problems. The bigger question is why is he still employed at WMF? GregJackP Boomer! 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm not trying to attack you Dennis, but there's a big difference between you and Eric, starting with are you under an arbitration restriction? No. Is Eric? Yes. All Eric has to do is stay civil; it really isn't that hard. Someday you'll realize what a timewaste it is to defend deliberately uncivil people. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And perhaps some day you'll realise how sanctimonious comments like that appear to be. I do not consider it "civil" to host snuff pictures, and that's the long and short of it. Obviously you do though. Eric Corbett 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ed17, how hypocritical you are! (You defended admin The Bushranger, whom you nominated at RfA, after I complained about his calling me a "classic narcissist", which he did multiple times and in multiple locations. No one did anything, but you came to my Talk and told me to "drop the stick". Your credibility is > 0?!) IHTS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel attacked in the slightest, Ed. I don't sweat disagreement, and often see it as an opportunity to learn something. My concerns are bigger than Eric, they are about the system, which is why I was involved in the current AE Arb battle before it was at Arb. The first to comment at ANI I believe. Inconsistency in how we treat each other is an editor retention concern, and there are some inconsistencies throughout policy enforcement at Wikipedia. Over the last few years, many things are better, many are not. When it is debated, it isn't uncommon to see my signature somewhere on the page. It is simple really, if you want civility, then you use methods that promote civility. Punishment is an ineffective tool for increasing civility. Frankly, I'm more disturbed by Kevin's recent actions than Eric's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Who was/were Kaldari's socks(s)? And Kaldari was never blocked for it? How does creating socks to harass another editor not warrant a block? And Sarah Stierch was never blocked, and still has the bit though under a different name? (Or was renamed? I can't figure it out.) And Eric is blocked for that little-bitty comment? And a highly abusive account I emailed ArbCom about days ago is still not blocked, after the arbs unblocked though it blatantly violated NPA, COI, BLP? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia observer, I really cannot be bothered to waste any more hours editing this site, it is apparent that Wikipedia is going has gone to the dogs. Eric calls some obviously loathsome individual something nasty, and then some clearly barking mad admin, who we all know is nursing some form of personal vendetta, objects and hay ho Eric is blocked and the usual drama fest results. FGS, can no one with any authority not see what is the problem here. Clue: its initials are not EC. Giano (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I only have one thing to add to what's already been said. Keilana acted very heavily handedly, and obviously hadn't even read the restriction she was enforcing on behalf of her friend Kevin Gorman, who is the real villain in this piece. Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for snuff sites that show pictures of murdered children than I do, so I stand by the comments I made about Kaldari that prompted this latest fiasco. And I don't expect to see anyone here again who doesn't. Eric Corbett 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, as I remember, when Kaldari was an administrator he set up a sock account to harass you at ANI, for which he was desysopped. What with that and the snuff peddling, “reptilian lowlife” seems mild. Might cause offence to reptiles, though. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm a little late, but whatever. First off: Eric, you can't go around insulting reptiles like that. You know better!...But on a more serious note, this is a total bullshit block. First of all, your statements regarding Kaldari were very mild and quite frankly, pretty accurate. As pointed out by Dennis, a lot of people (myself included) think that he is a total asshole, so despite this stupid block, you have a lot of people who concur with your comments. As for Kevin Gorman, my best advice is to not mention him at all. If you don't do anything to provoke him and he still continues to harass you, there will be a plethora of people who will have your back, because Nick has already threatened an indef if he pulls a stunt like that (what he did at AE) again. Anyway, when the block expires, try to avoid joining [pointless] discussions that don't involve content, even if the comment you're going to make is true. That way, bullies like Kaldari and Kevin will have no reason to go after you (hopefully). When this block expires, get back to making GAs and FAs like you usually do (hopefully, we'll bump into each other at GA's at some point). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just a passing comment from a casual observer. The violation was real, but the block is very heavy handed, not taking into account the history. The reduction of the block was proper. However, it is not clear to me what Eric hopes to achieve by calling editors "lowlifes" and such. Even if I think that George Bush (to take a totally random example) is a lowlife, if he edited Wikipedia, I would not go around calling him one. And he did much worse things than putting up pictures of dead people. Even editors who are assholes in real life (not talking about Kaldari, I don't know him) deserve to edit in peace here. Just ask for an interaction ban if you are bothered. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's bothered, I've just said what I think. Eric Corbett 17:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said, even real-life lowlifes have a right to edit in peace on WP. I do think that user talk pages should have a lower threshold of civility and I do not think this was a major offence, but this one was self-inflicted. I won't say much more: this was a casual remark about a minor matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion

Feel very free to tell me to go away, using whatever insults you like. I promise not to go crying to AE. But can I suggest that, if the 'reptilian lowlife' comment was intended as a David Icke reference, then it was an ill-judged one? Using relatively obscure cultural references to an audience who are clearly going to have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about seems to be a foible to which the British are particularly prone, in my long observation of them. I have heard, for instance, someone presenting a training course to Koreans with little to no English language say, "And just like on Blue Peter, here's one I prepared earlier." He then went on to try to explain, almost certainly a mistake. Or another, speaking to Chinese, again with fairly little English, who said of a piece of control equipment, "You end up confusing the pants off it." Which, of course, confused the pants off them. Is this not an example of the same tendency?

If it was intended as a straight-out insult, then fine, ignore me. But I suspect it was intended as an attempt to lighten the situation with humour, suggesting facetiously that you were going in for lizard-overlord-type conspiracy theories. I'm not surprised people misunderstood it, I'm afraid. GoldenRing (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect Eric was using it in the sense of OED 3.
3. transf. Mean, malignant, underhand.
1859 Geo. Eliot A. Bede xii, He had an agreeable confidence that his faults were all impetuous,leonine; never crawling, crafty, reptilian. 1888 Pall Mall G. 5 Nov. 4/2 His dead father is fair game for Reptilian slanderers.
But you're right about the Brit assumption that obscure cultural references are somehow appreciated the world over from Eskimos to ... erm ... penguins. Even the North/South divide: that we Southerners somehow understand instinctively that when a Northerner calls us a stupid twat, they're just basically being friendly within the limited confines of their cultural norms (ay up) . c1cada (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Who knows what they might consider normal in the Grim North? And then when you get as far as Gloucester, well... GoldenRing (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
c1cada (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the time I was in a pub near Piccadilly railway station in Manchester and some "Cockney reds" (Manchester United supporters from London) came in for a few beers before the match. They had been in before and the landlady - who was in her late sixties but married to a younger man and very touchy about her age - had served them on a number of occasions and greeted them warmly. However, when one of them said to her "Well we had to come in and see the old girl" she looked horrified, spluttered a little and then said "It's a good job you're a cockney!". The young lad looked totally nonplussed and said "Why - what have I said?" Richerman (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


I don't think this is something to which "the British are particularly prone" – I'm frequently left non-plussed by such references in US media. I don't think anyone in particular is more prone to it than anyone else – I also remember being left non-plussed by a cultural reference some French people once offered me. I never did work out what they were on about. But I do think that kind of thing is often a factor in online friction. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That's absolutely right about online friction. It's a serious problem when non-native speakers start editing at a wiki and get involved in some controversy. The slightest irony becomes a declaration of war.c1cada (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill

Hello Eric,

Thank you for your copyediting over at Battle of Malvern Hill. Much appreciated. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wessex

For any TPSs interested, I'm currently working on (or at least trying to work on) the Wessex article, with the goal of taking it to GAN or even FAC in the far future. Any assistance would be welcomed. Thanks, --Biblioworm 20:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Don't sweat it; I simply mentioned you in passing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spaghetti07205 and so am dropping you the necessary notification. I know those three letters probably don't elicit the warmest of feelings from you... Yunshui 雲水 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut

Hello Eric,

Just wanted to ask if you can do a bit of copyediting at Kurt Vonnegut and perhaps leave a comment at the peer review. Would be very much appreciated. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2015/July&oldid=1232495411"